Mathmatical Thought From Ancient to Modern Times

Sample
Batch PDF Merg

Sample
Batch PDF Merg

Mathematical Thought
from Ancient to Modern Times
MORRIS KLINE
Professor of Mathematics
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
New York University
/
New York OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS rg72
Copfight @ 1972 by Morris Klinc
Library of Congress Catalogue Card Numbr 77-170263
Printed in thc Unitcd Statca of Amcri.a
To my wife, Helen Mann Kline
Preface
If we wish to foresee the future of mathematics our proper

course is to study the history and present condition of the
science. ' HtNnr PotNcenf
This book treats the major mathematical creations and developments

from ancient times through the first few decades of the twentieth century.
It aims to present the central ideas, with particular emphasis on those
currents of activity that have loomed largest in the main periods of the life
of mathematics and have been influential in promoting and shaping sub-
sequent mathematical acgrvity' The very concept of mathematics, the
changes in that concept in\different periods, and the mathematicians' own
understanding ofwhat they were achieving have also been vital concerns.
This work must be regarded as a survey of the history. When one
considers that Euler's works fill some seventy volumes, Cauchy's twenty-six
volumes, and Gauss's twelve volumes, one can readily appreciate that a
one-volume work cannot present a full account. Some chapters of this work
present only samples ofwhat has been created in the areas involved, though
i trust that these samples are the most representative ones. Moreover, in
citing theorems or results, I have often omitted minor conditions required for
strict correctness in order to keep the main ideas in focus. Restricted as this
work may be, I believe that some perspective on the entire history has been
presented.
The book's organization emphasizes the leading mathematical themes
rather than the men. Every branch of mathematics bears the stamP of its
founders, and great men have played decisive roles in determining the course
of mathematics. But it is their ideas that have been featured; biography is
entirely subordinate. In this respect, I have followed the advice of Pascal:
"When we cite authors we cite their demonstrations, not their names."
To achieve coherence, particularly in the period after 1700, I have
treated each development at that stage where it became mature, prominent,
and influential in the mathematical realm. Thus non-Euclidean geometry is
presented in the nineteenth century even though the history of the efforts to
VTII PRETACE
repldce or prove the Euclidean parallel axiom date from Euclid's time
onward. Of course, many topics recur at various periods.
To keep the material within bounds I have ignored several civilizations
such as the Chinese,l Japanese, and Mayan because their work had no
material impact on the main line of mathematical thought. Also some
developments in mathematics, such as the theory of probability and the
calculus of finite differences, which are important today, did not play major
roles during the period covered and have accordingly received very little
attention. The vast expansion of the last few decades has obliged me to
include only those creations of the twentieth century that became significant
in that period. To continue into the twentieth century the extensions ofsuch
subjects as ordinary differential equations or the calculus ofvariations would
call for highly specialized material of interest only to research men in those
fields and would have added inordinately to the size ofthe work. Beyond these
considerations, the importance of many of the more recent developments
cannot be evaluated objectively at this time. The history of mathematics
teaches us that many subjects which aroused tremendous enthusiasm and
engaged the attention of the best mathematicians ultimately faded into
oblivion. One has but to recall Cayley's dictum that projective geometry is
all geometry, and Sylvester's assertion that the theory of algebraic invariants
summed up all that is valuable in mathematics. Indeed one of the interesting
questions that the history answers is what survivcs in mathematics. History
makes its own and sounder evaluations.
Readers of even a basic account of the dozens of major developments
cannot be expected to know the substance of all these developments. Hence
except for some very elementary areas the contents of the subjects whose his-
tory is being treated are also described, thus fusing exposition with history.
These explanations of the various creations may not clarify them completely
but should give some idea of their nature. Consequently this book may
serve to some extent as a historical introduction to mathematics, This
approach is certainly one of the best ways to acquire understanding and
appreciation.
I hope that this work will be helpful to professional and prospective
mathematicians. The professional man is obliged today to devote so much of
his time and energ'y to his specialty that he has little opportunity to familiar-
ize himself with the history of his subject. Yet this background is important.
The roots ofthe present lie deep in the past and almost nothing in that past is
irrelevant to the man who seeks to understand how the present came to be
what it is. Moreover, mathematics, despite the proliferation into hundreds of
branches, is a unity and has its major problems and goals. Unless the various
specialties contribute to the heart of mathematics they are likely to be
L A fine account ofthe history of Chinese mathematics is available in Joseph Needham's
Science and Ciailization in China, Cambridge University Press, 1959, Vol. 3, pp. l-168.
PREFACE lX
sterile. Perhaps the surest way to combat the dangers which beset our
fragmented subject is to acquire some knowledge of the past achievements,
traditions, and objectives of mathcmatics so that one can direct his research
into fruitful channels. As Hilbert put it, " Mathematics is an organism for
whose vital strength the indissoluble union of the parts is a necessary
condition."
For students of mathematics this work may have other values. The
usual courses Present segments of mathematics that seem to have little re-
lationship to each other. The history may give perspective on the. entire
subject and relate the subject matter ofthe courses not only to each other but
also to the main body of mathematical thought'
The usual courses in mathematics are also deceptive in a basic resPect'
They give an organized logical presentation which leaves the impression that
mathematicians go from theorem to theorem almost naturally, that matle-
maticians can master any difficulty, and that the subjects are completely
thrashed out and settled. The succession of theorems overwhelms thc student,
especially if he isjust learning the subject.
The history, by contrast, teaches us that the development of a subject
is made bit by bit with results coming from various directions. We learn, too,
that often decades and even hundreds ofyears of effort were required bcfore
significant steps could be made. In place of the irnpression that the subjects
are completely thrashed out one finds that what is attained is often but a
start, that many gaps have to be filled, or that the really imPortant extensions
remain to be created.
'ihe polished presentations in the courses fail to show the struggles
ofthe creative process, the frustrations, and the long arduous road mathema-
ticians must travel to attain a sizable structure. Once aware of this, the
student will not only gain insight but derive courage to Pursue tenaciously
his own problems and not be dismayed by the incompleteness or deficiencics
in his own work. fndeed the account of how mathematicians stumblcd,
groped their way through obscurities, and arrived piecemeal at their rcsults
should give heart to any tlro in research.
To cover the large area which this work comprises I have tried to
select the most reliable sources. In the pre-calculus period these sources,
such as T. L. lJeattr's A Historg of Gruk Mathcmatbs, are admittcdly secondary,
though I have not relied on just one such source. For the subsequent dc-
velopment it has usually been possible to go directly to the original papers,
which fortunately can be found in thejournals or in the collected works of the
prominent mathematicians. I have also been aided by numerous accounts and
i.-,.'rr"y. of research, some in fact to be found in the collected works' I have
tried to give references for all of the major results; but to do so for all asser-
tions would have meant a mass of references and the consumption of space
that is better devoted to the account itself.
PREFACE
The sources have been indicated in the bibliographies of the various

chapters, The interested reader can obtain much more information from
thcse sources than I have extracted. These bibliographies also contain many
references which should not and did not serve as sources, However, they have
been included either because they offer additional information, because the
level of presentation may be helpful to some readers, or because they may be
more accessible than the original sources.
I wish to express thanks to my colleagues Martin Burrow, Bruce Chand-
ler, Martin Davis, Donald Ludwig, Wilhelm Magnus, Carlos Moreno,
Harold N, Shapiro, and Marvin TretJ<.off, who answered numerous ques-
tions, read many chapters, and gave valuable criticisms. I am especially
indebted to my wife Helen for her critical editing of the manuscript, extensive
checking of names, dates, and sources, and most careful reading ofthe galleys
and page proofs. Mrs. Eleanore M. Gross, who did the bulk of the typing,
was enormously helpful. To the staff of Oxford University Press, I wish to
express my gratitude for their scrupulous production of this work.
New York M. K.
May 1972
Contents
1. Mathematics in Mesopotamia, 3
l. Where Did Mathematics Begin? 3 2. Political History in Mesopotamia,4

3. The Number Symbols, 5 4. Arithmetic OPerations, 7 5. Babylonian Algebra, 8
6. Babylonian Ceometry, l0 7. The Uses of Mathematics in Babylonia, I I
8- Evaluation of Babylonian Mathematics, 13
2, Eg'yptian Mathematics, 15
l. Background, 15 2. The Arithmetic, 16 3. Algebra and Geomery, l8 4' Egyptian
Uses of Mathematics, 21 5. Summary, 22
3. The Creation of Classical Greek Mathematics,24

l. Background, 24 2. The General Sources,25 3. The Major Schools of the Classical
Period,27 4. The Ionian School, 28 5' The Pythagoreans, 28 6' The Eleatic
School, 34 7. The Sophist School, 37 8. The Platonic School, 42 9' The Schoot
of Eudoxus, 48 10. Aristotle and His School, 5l
4. Euclid and Apollonius, 56

l. Introduction, 56 2. The Background of Euclid's Elements,5T 3' The Definitions
and Axioms of ltrle Elements,SE 4. Books I to IV of the Elements,60 5' Book V:
The Theory of Proportion, 68 6. Book VI : Similar Figures, 73 7' Bools VII,
VIII, and IX: The Theory of Numbers, 77 8. Book X: The Classification of
Incommensurables, 80 9. Books XI, XII, and XIII: Solid Geometry and the Mcthod
of Exhaustion, El 10. The Merits and Defects of the Elemcnts, S6 ll' Other
Mathematical Works by Euclid,88 12. The Mathematical Work of Apollonius, S9
5. The Alexandrian Greek Period: Geometry and Trigonometry, l0l

L The Founding of Alexandria, l0l 2. The Character of Alexandrian Greek
Mathematics, 103 3. Areas and Volumes in the Work of Archimedes, 105 4' Areas
and Volumes in the Work of Heron, 116 5. Some Exceptional Curves, ll7 6' The
Creation of Trigonometry, I 19 7. Late Alexandrian Activity in Geometry, 126
6. The Alexandrian Period: The Reemergence of Arithmetic and Algebra,

131
1. The Symbols and Operations of Greek Arithmetic, l3l 2' Arithmetic and
Algebra as an Independent Development, 135
xll CONTENTS
7. The Greek Rationalization of Nature, 145

l. Thc Inspiration for Grcck Mathematics, 145 2. Thc Bcginnings of a Rational View
of Nature, 146 3. The Dcvclopment of the Belief in Mathematical Design, 147
4. Grcek Mathematical Astronomn 154 5. Geography, 160 6. Mechanics, 162
7. Optics, 166 8. Astrology, 168
B. The Demise of the Greek World, 171

l. A Rcview of the Greek Achievements, l7l 2. The Limitations of Greek
Mathematics, 173 3. The Problems Bequeathed by the Greeks, 176 4. The Demise of
the Greek Civilization, 177
9. The Mathematics of the Hindus and Arabs, lB3

l. Early Hindu Mathematics, 183 2. Hindu Arithmetic and Algebra of the Period
e.o, 20G-1200, 184 3. Hindu Geometry and Trigonometry of the Period
e.o, 200-1200, 188 4. The Arabs, 190 5. Arabic Arithmetic and Algebra, l9l
6. Arabic Gcometry and Trigonometry, 195 7. Matlcmatics circa 1300, 197
I0. The Medieval Period in Europe, 200

l. The Beginnings of a European Civilization, 200 2. The Materials Available for
Learning, 201 3. The Role of Mathcmatics in Early Medieval Europe, 202 4. The
Stagnation in Mathematics, 203 5. Thc First Revival of the Greek Works, 205
6. The Revival of Rationalism and Intcrest in Nature, 206 7. Progress in
Mathematics Proper, 209 8. Progress in Physical Scicnce, 2ll 9. Summary,2l3
II. The Renaissance, 21 6

l. Revolutionary Influences in Europe, 216 2. The New Intellectual Outlook, 218
3. The Spread of Learning, 220 4. Humanistic Activity in Mathematics, 221
5. The Clamor for the Rdorm of Science, 223 6. The Rise of Empiricism, 227
12. Mathematical Contributions in the Renaissance, 231

l. Perspcctive,23l 2. Geometry Proper, 234 3. Algebra, 236 4. Trigonometry,
237 5, The Major Scientific Progress in thc Renaissance, 240 6. Remarks on the
Rcnaissance, 247
13. Arithmetic and Algebra in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,

250
l. Introduction, 250 2. The Status of the Number System and Arithmctic, 251
3. Symbolism,259 4. The Solution of Third and Fourth Degree Equations,263
5. The Theory of Equations, 270 6. The Binomial Theorem and Allied Topics, 272
7. The Theory of Numbers, 274 8.The Relationship of Algebra to Geometry, 278
14. The Beginnings of Projective Geometry, 285

l. The Rebirth of Geometry, 285 2. The Problems Raised by the Work on Perspective,
286 3, The Work of Desargues, 288 4, The Work of Pascal and La Hire, 295
5. The Emergence of New Principles, 299
CONTENTS xIU
15. Coordinate GeometrY, 302

l. The Motivation for Coordinate Geomctry, 302 2. The Coordinate Geometry of
Fcrmat,3033.RendDescartes,SO44.Descartes'sWorkinCoordinateGeometry'
308 5. Seventeenth'Century Extensions of Coordinate Geometry, 317 6' The
Importance of Coordinate Geometrn 321
16. The Mathematization of Science, 325

l. Introduction, 325 2' Descartes's Concept of Scicnce, 325 3' Gali leo's Approach to
Scicnce, 327 4. The Function Concept, 335
17. The Creation of the Calculus, 342

1. The Motivation for the Calculus,342 2. Early Sevcnteenth-Century Work on thc
Calculus, 344 3. The Work of Newton, 356 4' The Work of Leibniz, 370 5' A
Comparison of the Work of Newton and Leibniz, 378 6' The Controversy ovcr
Priority, 380 7. Some Immediate Additions to the Calculus, 381 8' The Soundness
of the Calculus, 383
18. Mathematics as of 1700, 391
l. The Transformation of Mathematics, 391 2. Mathematics aud Scicnce, 394

3. Communication Among Mathematicians, 396 '1' The Prospccts for the
Eighteenth Century, 398
19. Calculus in the Eighteenth Century, 400

l. Introduction' 400 2. The Function Conccpt, '103 3' The Techniquc of Intcgration
and Complex Quantities, 406 4. Elliptic Integrals, 411 5' Further Spccial Functions'
422 6. ihe Calculus of Functions of Scveral Variables, 425 7'The AttcmPB to
Supply Rigor in thc Calculus, 426
20. Infinite Series, 436

l. Introduction, 436 2' Initial Work on Infinite Scries, 436 3' Thc Expansion of
Functions, 440 4. The Manipulation of Series, 442 5' Trigonomctric Serics, 454
6. Continued Fractions, 459 7. The Problem of Convcrgencc and Divcrgence' 460
21. Ordinary Differential Equations in the Eighteenth Century, 468

l. Motivations, 468 2. First Order Ordinary Differential Equations,4Tl
3. Si.rg.rlar Soiutions, 476 4. Second Order Equations and thc Riccati Equationr'
478
5. Hig:her Order Equations,484 6. Th€ Method of Series, 'i88 7' Systems of
Differential Equations, 490 8. Summary,499
22. Pa*ial Differential Equations in the Eighteenth Century, 502

l. lntroduction 502 2. The Wave Equation, 503 3' Extensions of thc Wavc Equation'
515 4. Potential Theory, 522 5. First Order Partial Differential Equationr' 531
6. Monge and thc Theory of Charactcristics , 5gO 7 ' Monge and Nonlinear Second
Order iquations, 538 I' Systems of First Order Partial Differential Equations' 5'fl)
9. The Rise of the Mathematical Subject, 542
XIV CONTENTS
23. Analytic and Differential Geometry in the Eighteenth Century, 544

l. Introduction, 544 2. Basic Analytic Geometry, 544 3. Higher plane Curves, 547
4. The Beginnings of Differential Geometry, 5.54 5. plane Curves, 555 6. Space
Curves, 557 7. The Theory of Surfaces, 562 B. The Mapping problem, 520
24. The Calculus of Variations in the Eighteenth Century, 573

l. The Initial Problems, 573 2.The Early Work of Euler, 577 3.The principle of
Least Action, 579 4. The Methodology of Lagrange, 582 5. Lagrange and Least
Action,.587 6. The Second Variation, 589
25. Algebra in the Eighteenth Century, 592

l Status of the Number System, 592 2. The Theory of Equations, 597
3. Dcterminants and Elimination Theory, 606 4. The Theory of Numbers, 60g

l. The Rise of Analysis, 614 2. The Motivation for the Eighteenth-Century Work,
616 3. The Problem of Prooll 617 4. The Metaphysicat Basis,619 5. The Expansion
of Mathematical Activity, 621 6. A Glance Ahead, 623
27. Functions of a Complex Variable, 626

l. Introduction, 626 2. The Beginnings of Complex Function Theory,626 3. The
Geometrical Representation of Complex Numbers, 628 4. The Found.ation of Complex
Function Theory, 632 5. Weierstrass's Approach to Function Theory,642 6. Ellipiic
Functions, 644 7. HypereUiptic Integrals and Abel,s Theorem, 651 g. Riemann and
Multiple-Valued Functions, 655 9. Abetian Integrals and Functions, 668
10. Conformal Mapping, 666 I l. The Representation of Functions and Exceptional
Values, 667
28. Partial Differential Equations in the Nineteenth Century, 671

l. Introduction, 671 2. The Heat Equation and Fourier Series, 671 3. €losed
Solutions; the Fourier Integral, 679 4. The potential Equation and Green,s Theorem,
681 5. Curvilinear Coordinates, 6ST 6. The Wave Equation and the Reduced Wave
Equation, 690 7. Systems of Partial Differential Equations, 696 g. Existence
Theorems, 699
29. Ordinary Differential Equations in the Nineteenth Century, 709

l. Introduction, 709 2. Series Solutions and Special Functions, 709 3. Sturm_
Liouville Theory, 715 4. Existence Theorems, 717 5. The Theory of Singularities,
72! 6. Automorphic Functions, 726 7. IJill's Work on periodic Solutions of Linear
Equations, 730 8. Nonlinear Differential Equations: The eualitative Theory,732
30. The Calculus of Variations in the Nineteenth Century, 739

l. Introduction, 739 2. Mathematicar physics and the carculus of variations, 739
3. Mathematical Extensions of the Calculus of Variations proper, 745 4. Related
Problems in the Calculus of Variations, 749
CONTENTS
31. Galois Theory, 752

l. Introduction, 752 2. Binomial Equations, 752 3. Abel's Work on the Solution of
Equations by Radicals, 754 4. Galois's Theory of Solvabitity, 755 5' The Geomctric
Construction Problems,763 6. The Theory of Substitution Groups,764
32. Quaternions, Vectors, and Linear Associative Algebtas,772

l. The Foundation of Algebra on Permanence of Form, 772 2. The Search for a
Three-Dimensional " Complex Number," 776 3. The Nature of Quaternions, 779
4. Grassman's Calculus of Extension, 782 5. From Quaternions to Vectors, 785
6. Linear Associative Algebras, 791
33. Determinants and Matrices, 795

l.Introduction, 795 2' Some New Uses of Determinants, 795 3' Determinants and
Quadratic Forms, 799 4. Matrices, 804
34. The Theory of Numbers in the Nineteenth Century, Bl3

l. Introduction, 813 2. The Theory of Congruences, 813 3. Algebraic Numbers,
818 4. The Ideals of Dedekind, 822 5' The Theory of Forms, 826 6' Analytic
Number Theory, 829
35. The Revival of Projective Geometry, 834

l. The Renewal of Interest in Geometry' 834 2' Synthetic Euclidean Geometry, 837
3. The Revival of Synthetic Projective Geometry, 8'10 4. Algebraic Projective
Geometry, 852 5. Higher Plane Curves and Surfaces' 855
36. Non-Euclidean Geometry' 86l

l. Introduction, 861 2. The Status of Euclidean Geometry About 1800,861
3.TheResearchontheParallelAxiom,3634.ForeshadowingsofNon-Euclidean
Geometry,867 5. The Creation of Non-Euclidean Geometry,869 6' The Technical
Content of Non-Euclidian Geometry, 874 7 . The Claims of Lobatchevsky and Bolyai
\ 877 8. The Implications of Non-Euclidean Geometry, 879
to P"iority,
37. The Differential Geometry of Gauss and Riemann, 882

l. Introduction, SS2 2. Gauss's Differential Geometry,882 3' Riemann's Approach
toGeometry,SSg4.TheSuccessorsofRiemann,3g65'InvariantsofDifferential
Forms, 899
38. Projective and Metric Geometry, 904

l. Introduction, 904 2' Surfaces as Models of Non-Euclidean Geometry,904
3. Projective and Metric Geometry, 906 4. Models and the Consistency Problem,
913 i. Geometry from the Transformation Viewpoint,9lT 6' Thc Reality of
Non-Euclidean Geometry, 921
39. Algebraic GeometrY, 924

l. Background, 924 2.'L'he Theory of Algebraic fnvariants, 925 3' The Concept of
Biration-al Transformations, 932 4. The Function-Theoretic APproach to Algebraic
x\/T CONTENTS
Geometry, 934 5. Thc Uniformization Problem, 937 6. Thc Algebraic-Geometric

Approach,939 7. The Arithmetic Approach,942 8. The Algcbraic Geometry of
Surfaces, 943
.10. The Instillation of Rigor in Analysis, 947

l. Introduction, 947 2. Functions and Their Propcrties, 949 3. The Derivative,954
4. The Integral,956 5. Infinite Series, 961 6. Fourier Series, 966 7. The Status
of Analysis, 972
4L The Foundations of the Real and Transfinite Numbers, 979

l. Introduction, 979 2. Algebraic and Transcendcntal Numbers, 980 3. The Theory
of Irrational Numbers, 982 4. Thc Theory of Rational Numbcrs, 987 5. Other
Approaches to the Real Number System, 990 6. The Concept of an Infinite Set, 992
7, The Foundation of the Thcory of Scts, 994 8. Transfinite Cardinals and Ordin\ls,
998 9. Thc Status of Sct Theory by 1900, 1002
42. The Foundations of Geometry, 1005

l. Thc Dcfccts in Euclid, 1005 2. Contributions to thc Foundations of Projective
Geometry, 1007 3. The Foundations of Euclidean Geometry, l0l0 4. Some Related
Foundational Work, l0l5 5. Some Open Questions, l0l7

l. The Chief Features of thc Nineteenth-Century Developmcnts, 1023 2. The Axiomatic
Movement, 1026 3. Mathcmatics as Man's Creation, 1028 4. The Loss of Truth, 1032
5. Mathematics as the Study of Arbitrary Structur€s, 1036 6, The Problem of
Consistency, 1038 7. A Glance Ahead, 1039
44. The Theory of Functions of Real Variables, 1040

l. The Origins, 1040 2. The Stieltjes Integral, l04l 3. Early Work on Content and
Mcaaure, l04l 4. The Lcbesgue Integral, 10'14 5. Generalizations, 1050
45. Integral Equations, 1052
l. Introduction, 1052 2. The Beginning ofa Gcneral Theory, 1056 3. The Work of
Hilbert, 1060 4. The Immediate Successors of Hilbert, 1070 5. Extensions of the
Theory, 1073
46. Functional Analysis, 1076

l. The Naturc of Functional Analysis, 1076 2. The Theory of Functionals, 1077
3. Linear Functional Analysis, l08l 4. The Axiomatization of Hilbert Spacc, l09l
47. Divergent Series, 1096

l. Introduction, 1096 2. The Informal Uses of Divergent Series, 1098 3. The Formal
Theory of Asymptotic Seri€s, ll03 4. Summability, ll09
CONTENTS
,
48. Tensor Analysis and Differential Geometry, I122

l. The Origins of Tensor Analysis, ll22 2. The Notion of a Tensor, ll23 3' Covariant
Differentiation, ll27 4. Parallel Displacement, ll30 5. Generalizations of Riemannian
Geometry, I 133
49. The Emergence ofAbstract Algebra, 1136
l. The Nine teenth-Century Background, ll36 2' Abstrrict Group Theory, ll37 3' The
AbstractTheoryofFields,l1464.Rings,ll505.Non-AssociativeAlgebras,ll53
6. The Range of Abstract Algebra, I 156
50. The Beginnings of Topology, ll58

l. The Nature of Topology, lt58 2' Point Set Topology, ll59 3' The Bcginnings of
Combinatorial Topology, l163 4' The Combinatorial Work of Poincard, ll70
5. Combinatorial invariants, 1176 6. Fixed Point Theorems, ll77 7' Generalizations
and Extensions, I179
51. The Foundations of Mathematics, I lB2

l. Introduction, 2. The Paradoxes ofSet Theory, ll83 3' The Axiomatization of
ll82
Set Theory, I 4. The Rise of Mathematical Logic, 1187 5' The Logistic School'
185
I 192 6. The Intuitionist School, I197 7' The Formalist School, 1203 8' Some
Reccnt
Developments, 1208
List of Abbreviations, l2l 3

Index, l2l7
Mathematics in Mesopotamia
Logic can be patient for it is eternal.

OLIVER HEAVISIDE
l. Where Did Mathemati.cs Begin?

Mathematics as an organized, independent, and reasoned discipline did not
exist before the classical Greeks of the period from 600 to 300 s.c. entered
upon the scene. There were, however, prior civilizations in which the begin-
nings or rudiments of mathematics were created. Many of these primitive
civilizations did not get beyond distinguishing among one, two, and manyl
others possessed, and were able to operate with, large whole numbers. Still
others achieved the recognition of numbers as abstract concePts, the adop-
tion of special words for the individual numbers, the introduction of symbols
for numbers, and even the use ofa base such as ten, twenty, or five to denote
a larger unit of quantity. One also finds the four operations of arithmetic,
but confined to small numbers, and the concept of a fraction, limited, how-
ever, to ll2, ll3, and the like, and expressed in words. In addition, the sim-
plest geometric notions, line, circle, and angle, were recognized. It is perhaps
ofinterest that the concept ofangle must have arisen from observation of the
angle formed by man's thigh and lower leg or his forearm and upper arm
because in most languages the word for the side ofan angle is either the word
for leg or the word for arm. In English, for example, we speak of the arms of
a right triangle. The uses of mathematics in these primitive civilizations were
limited to simple trading, the crude calculation of areas of fields, geometric
decoration on pottery, Patterns woven into cloth, and the recording of
time.
Until we reach the mathematics of the Babylonians and the Egyptians
of about 3000 s.c. we do not find more advanced stePs in mathematics'
Since primitive peoples settled down in one area, built homes, and relied
upon agriculture and animal husbandry as far back as 10,000 8.c., we see
how slowly the most elementary mathematics made its first steps; moreover'
the existence of vast numbers of civilizations with no mathematics to speak
of shows how sparsely this science was cultivated.
3
MATIIEMATICS IN MESOPOTAMIA
2. Political History in Mesopotamia

The Babylonians were the first of these two early civilizations to contribute
to the main course of mathematics. Since our knowledge of the ancient
civilizations of the Near East and of Babylonia in particular is largely the
product of archaeological research of the last hundred years, this knowledge
is incomplete and subject to correction as new discoveries are made. The
term "Babylonian" covers a series of peoples, who concurrently or succes-
sively occupied the area around and between the Tigris and Euphrates
rivers, a region known as Mesopotamia and now part of modern Iraq. These
peoples lived in independent cities such as Babylon, Ur, Nippur, Susa,
ASIur, IJruk, Lagash, Kish, and others. About 4000 s.c. the Sumerians,
racially distinct from the Semitic and Indo-Germanic peoples, settled down
in part of Mesopotamia. Their capital city was Ur, and the land area they
controlled was called Sumer. Though their culture reached its height about
2250 t.c., even before this, about 2500 r.c., the Sumerians came under the
political control of the Akkadians, a Semitic people whose major city was
Akkad and who were Ied at that time by the ruler Sargon. Sumerian civiliza-
tion was submerged in the Akkadian. A period ol high culture occurred
during the reign of King Hammurabi (about 1700 r.c.), who is known as the
formulator of a famous code of law.
Around 1000 g.c. migrations and the introduction of iron resulted in
further changes. Later, in the eighth century 8.c., the area was ruled by the
Assyrians, who settled primarily in the upper Tigris region. To our knowl-
edge, they did not add anything new to the culture. A century later the
Assyrian empire was shared by the Chaldeans and the Medes, the latter
being close racially to the Persians further east. This period in Mesopotamian
history (7th cent. B.c.) is often referred to as Chaldean. The Near East was
conquered by the Persians under Cyrus about 540 s.c. Persian mathema-
ticians such as Nabu-rimanni (c.490 e.c.) and Kidinu (c.480 n.c.) became
known to the Greeks.
In 330 4.c., Alexander the Great, the Greek military leader, con-
quered Mesopotamia. The period from 300 B.c. to the birth of Christ
is called Seleucid after the Greek general who first took control of the re-
gion following the death of Alexander in 323 s.c. However, the flowering
of Greek mathematics had already taken place, and from the time of
Alexander until the seventh century e.o., when the Arabs arrived on the
scene, the Greek influence predominated in the Near East. Most of
what the Babylonians contributed to mathematics predates the Seleucid
period.
Despite the numerous changes in the rulers of Mesopotamia, there was,
in mathematics, a continuity of knowledge, tradition, and practice from
ancient times at ]east to the time of Alexander.
THE NUMBER SYMBOI.S
3. The Number Symbols

our main information about the civilization and mathematics of Babylonia,
ancient and more recent, comes lrom texts in the form of clay tablets' These
tablets were inscribed when the clay was still soft and then baked' Hence
those that survived destruction are well preserved' They date mainly
from
two periods, some from about 2000 B.c., and a larger number from the
p..iod60oB.o._A.D'300.Theearliertabletsarethemoreimportantinthe
history of mathematics.
t'h" l.rrgr"g" and script of the older tablets is Akkadian, which was
,rrpe.i-po.eJ on the older Sumerian language and script' The words of the
at Uai.r, language consisted of one or more syllables; each syllable was
represented b-y a collection ol what are essentially line segments' The
Akkudiurs used a stylus with a triangular cross-section held at an angle to
the clay, which proiuced wedge-shaped impressions that could be oriented
in different ways. From cuneus, the Latin word for " wedge," the script
became known as cuneiform.
ThemosthighlydevelopedarithmeticoftheBabyloniancivilizationis
the Akkadian. Whole numbers were wlitten as follows:
n
2
Rf
34
Y-W w
5
ffi
6
v-m
w w <Y
ll
<It
20 40
4
.10
I l0 t2 30
Y K Y< YY YY<
60 70 80 120 r30
The striking features of the Babylonian number system are the base 60 and
positional notation.
At first the Babylonians had no symbol to indicate the absence of a
number in any one position, and consequently their numbers were am-
biguous. Thus (could mean B0 or 3620, depending upon whether the first
symbol meant 60 or 3600. Spacing was often used to indicate no quantity
in a given position, but of course this might be misinterpreted' In the
6 plTHEMAflcs rN MEsoporAMrA
Seleucid period a special separation symbol was introduced to indicate the

absence of a number. fhus pf : 1.602 + 0.60 + 4 : 3604. However,
even in this period no symbol was used to indicate the absence ofa quan-
tity at the right-hand end as in our 20. In both periods the content had to be
relied upon to indicate the precise value of the entire number,
The Babylonians used positional notation to represent fractions also. Thus
(( intended as a fraction meant 20/60 and ((f , intended as a fraction,
could be 2l/60 or 20160 + l/60r. The ambiguity in their number system is
therefore even greater than previously indicated.
A few fract]ons had special symbols. Thus one finds: # +I J[
+i?
These special fractions, 112, 113, and,2l3, were to the Babylonians ,.wholes,,,
in the sense of measures of quantities, and not a division ofunity into parts,
though they arose as measures of quantity having these respective relations
to another quantity. Thus we might write I0 cents as l/10 in relation to the
dollar but think of the l/10 as a unit in itself.
Actually the Babylonians did not use base 60 exclusively. Sometimes the
years were written 2 me 25, where me stood for hundred-in our symbols,225.
Also llmu was used for 1000, generally in nonmathematical texts, though it
occurs even in mathematical texts of the Seleucid period. Sometimes l0 and
60 were mixed, as in2 me l, 10, which means 2 x 100 + t x 60 + l0 or
270. Mixed systems involving units of 60, 24, 12, 10,6, and 2 were used for
dates, areas, measures of weight, and coinage, just as we use 12 for hours, 60
for minutes and seconds, 12 for inches, and l0 for ordinary counting. The
Babylonian systems, like ours, were a composite of many historical and
regional customs. However, in the mathematical and astronomical texts they
did use base 60 quite consistently.
We do not know definitely how base 60 came to be used. The suggestion
may have come from the systems of weight measures. Suppose we have a
system of weight measures with values in it having the ratios
I12, 113,213, 1,10.
Now suppose there is another system with a different unit but the same
ratios, and political or social forces compel the fusing of the two systems. (We
have meters and yards, for example.) I[ the larger unit were 60 times the
smaller, then 112, 113, and 213 of the larger unit would be integral multiples
of the smaller one. Thus the larger unit might have been adopted because it
was so convenient.
As to the origin ofpositional notation, there are two likely explanations.
In an older scheme of writing numbers I multiplied by 60 was written with a
larger I than the same symbol for l. When the writing was simplified the
larger I was reduced in size but kept in the usual place for 60. Hence position
ARITHMETIC OPERATION8 7
became the denotation of a multiple of 60. Another possible explanation

comes from the coinage system' One talent and 10 mana may have been
written !( , where the I meant I talent, which is 60 mana' We do the same
when we write $1.20 and mean 100 cents by the l. The scheme for writing
amounts of money may then have been taken over to arithmetic generally'
4. Arithmetic OPerations
In the Babylonian system the symbols for I and l0 were basic. Numbers from
I to 59 were formed by combining fewer or more of these symbols' Hence the
processes of addition and subtraction were merely a matter of adding or
iaking away symbols. To indicate addition the Babylonians joined numbers
i" (fff, which indicates 16. Subtraction was often indicated by
together u,
the symbol
|> . fn"t { Ifr
ti
f - ,. In astronomical texts of a later
signi$ing addition.
period the word tab appears,
Multiplication of integers was also performed. To multiply by 37, say,
would mein multiplying by 30, then by 7, and adding the results' The
symbol for multiplication *ut I p[, pronounced a-rd' lt r'r.rearrt " to go'"
TheBabyloniansdividedonewholenumberbyanother.Sincetodivide
by an integer a is to multiply by the reciprocal I la, to this extent fractions
*".. irr'rroli.d. The Babylonians converted the reciprocals to sexagesimal
" decimals " and, except for the few mentioned above, did not use special
symbols for fractions. They had tables showing how numbers of the form l/a,
where a : 2s385t, could be written as terminating sexagesimal numbers'
Some tables gave approximate values for 1/7, l/l l, l/13, etc', because these
fractions led to infinite repeating sexagesimals. where fractions involving
denominators other than 2, 3, or 5 occurred in the older problems, the same
troublesome factors occurred in the numerator and were cancelled'
The Babylonians relied entirely uPon the tables of reciprocals' Their
tables show, for example,
igi 2 gdl-bi 30 igi B gdl-bi 7,30

igi 3 gdl-bi 20 igi 9 gdl-bi 6,4O
isi 4 sdt-bi rs
igi 6 sdl-bi l0 igi27 gdl-bi2, 13,20
obviously meaning ll2 :30160, ll3 :20160, etc. The precise meanhgs of
igi and, gil-bi are not known. Sexagesimal fractions, that is, numbers less than
1 in inverse powers of 60, 602, etc., but with denominators merely
"*p.ot"d continued to be used by the Greeks Hipparchus and Ptolemy
understood,
and in Renaissance Europe up to the sixteenth century, when they were
replaced by decimals in base 10.
I MATHEMATTcS rN MEsoporAMrA
The Babylonians also had tables expressing squares, square roots, cubes,
and cube roots. When the root was a whole number it was given exactly. For
other roots, the corresponding sexagesimal numbers were only approximate.
Of course, irrationals cannot be expressed in a finite number of decimals or
sexagesimals. flowever, there is no evidence that the Babylonians were
aware of this. They might well have believed that the irrationals could be
converted exactly to sexagesimal numbers if more places were used. An
excellent Babylonian approximation to {2 gives {1, : 1.41+213 . . .
instead of 1.414214 . . ..
Roots occur in their calculations of the diagonal d of a rectangle of
height i and width zo. One problem asks for the diagonal of a rectangular
gate with given height and width. The answer is given without explanation
and amounts to using the approximate formula for the diagonal d namely,
dxh J-'2h
ro2
-.
The formula is a good approximation to d for i > zz. Thus for lz > rl,,, as is
the case in one problem, we can see that the answer is reasonable by noting
that
d : \/F * -a :
^l
,;# : n(r + {)'''
Ifwe now expand the binomial and retain only the first two terms we get the
formula. Other approximate answers to square-root problems were given,
obtained presumably by using numbers in Babylonian tables.
5. Babylonian Algebra
Distinct from the table texts, which yield much information on the Baby-
lonian number system and operations with numbers, are texts that deal with
algebraic and geometric problems. A fundamental problem of the older
Babylonian algebra asks for a number which, added to its reciprocal, yields
a given number. In modern notation, the Babylonians sought r and i such
that
xi : l, t * E : b.
These two equations equation in x, namely, x2 btt +
-
I: 0. They formed
JT='and then
b .b
and.
2+ ,-
which yield the answers. In effect, the Babylonians had the quadratic for-
mula. Other problems, such as finding two numbers whose sum and product
BABYLOMAN ALGEBRA 9
are given, were reduced to the above problem. Since the Babylonians had no
,r.giai,r. numbers, negative roots ol quadratic equations were neglected'
Though only concrete examples were given, many were intended to illustrate
a ge.r"ral pro"edrrre for quadratics. More complicated algebraic problems
were reduced by transformations to simpler ones'
The Babylonians were able to solve special problems involving five
unknowns in hve equations. One problem, which arose in connection with
the adjustment of astronomical observations, involved ten equations and ten
,rkro-*rs, mostly linear. The solution used a special method of combining
the equations until.the unknowns were evaluated'
ihe algebraic problems were stated and solved verbally' The words as
(length), sag (breadth), and aia (area) were often used for the unknowns' not
because the unknowns necessarily represented these geometric quantities'
but probably because many algebraic problems came from geometric
situations and the geometric terminology became standard' An illustration
of the way in which these terms were employed for the unknowns and of the
*ay ir, *hi"h problems were stated may be gathered from the following:
..I have multipiied Length and Breadth and the Area is 10. I have multiplied
the Length by itself and have obtained an Area. The excess- of Length over
Breadth I have multiplied by itself and this result by 9. And this Arca is Area
obtained by multiplying the Length by itself. What are the Length and
Breadth?" It is obvious here that the words Length, Breadth, arrd Atea ate1
merely convenient terms for two unknowns and their product, respectively'
Today we would write this problem as
xY:10
9(x-y)2:f.
The solution, incidentally, leads to a fourth-degree equation in *, witfr th;
x arrd x3 terms missing so that it can be and was solved as a quadratic in x3.
Problemsleadingtoacuberootalsooccurred.Themodernformulation
of one such problem would be
l2x : z, !: x, )c! z : V,
where Zis some known volume. To find x here we must extract a cube root'
The Babylonians calculated this root from the cube-root tables we mentioned
the
earlier. They also did compound-interest Problems that called for finding
value of an unknown exPonent.
The Babylonians sometimes employed symbols for unknowns, but the
examples of algebraic problems can be found in van dcr Wacrden'

pp' 65-73'
l' Many
See the bibliography at the end of the chapter.
IO
symbolism came about inadvertently. In some problems two special Sumer-

ian words (somewhat modified by Akkadian endings) were used to represent
two unknowns that were reciprocals of each other. Moreover, the ancient
Sumerian pictorial symbols were used fior these words, and since these
pictorial symbols were no longer in the current language, the effect was to
use special symbols for unknowns, These symbols were used repeatedly and
one could identify them without even knowing how they were pronounced in
Akkadian.
The algebraic problems were solved by describing only the stePs re-
quired to execute the solution. For example, square l0 obtaining 100;
subtract 100 from 1000; this gives 900; and so forth. Since no reasons fior
steps were given, we can only infer how they knew what to do.
They summed arithmetic progressions and geometric progressions in
concrete problems; for the latter we find, in our notation,
I + 2 + 4 +... +2s :2e + (2e _ l) : 21o _ l.
Also, the sum ofthe squares of the integers from I to l0 was given as though
they had applied the formula
rz +22+... + * : (,,!* n" 3)tt * 2 + s +... +,).

No derivation accompanied the special cases treated in their texts.
Babylonian algebra included a bit of the theory of numbers. Many sets
of Pythagorean triples were found, probably by the correct rulel that is, if
x:!, - 42,!:2pq, z:?'+ q', then.r2 I y': z'. They also solved
i + y' : 222 in integers.
6. Babylonian Geornetry
The role of geometry in Babylonia was insignificant. Geometry was not a
separate mathematical discipline. Problems involving division of a field or
the sizes of bricks needed for some construction were readily converted into
algebraic problems. Some computations of area and volume were given in
accordance with rules or formulas. However, the figures illustrating geo-
metric problems were roughly drawn and the formulas may have been in-
correct, In the Babylonians' calculations of areas, for example, we cannot
tell whether their triangles were right triangles or whethgr their quadri-
laterals were squares and, hence, whether their formulas were the right ones
for the figures concerned. However, the Pythagorean relationship, the simi-
larity of triangles, and the proportionality of corresponding sides in similar
triangles were known. The area of a circle was obtained, apparently by
following the ru le that A : whe.e c is the circumference. This rule amounts

$
THB USES OF MATHEMA.I'ICS IN BABYLONIA I I
tousing3forz.However,anotheroftheirresultsgivingtherelationbetween
the cirJumference of a regular hexagon and its circumscribed circle implies
a value ol 3 l/B for zr. A few volumes were comPuted, some correctly and
some incorrectly, in the course of solving particular physical
problems'
Apart from a few special facts, such as the calculation of the radius of a
a inown isosceles triangle, the substance of Babylonian
circle circumscribing
geometry was a colLction of rules for the areas of simple plane figures' in-
It,rdirrg ."g,rlu. polygons, and the volumes of simple solids' The geometry
*u, ,rJ, ,ai ai"d-i.r'ut d ficr itself but always in connection with practical
problems.
7. Th; uws d Mathernatics in Babglonia

DespitethelimitedextentoftheBabylonians,mathematics,itenteredinto
Babylonia was in th€ path of trade routes and
-.riy phor". of their lives.The Babylonians used their knowledge of arith-
was extensive.
"o--i.""
metic and simple algebra to exPress lengths and weights, to exchange money
and merchandise, to compute simple and compound interest, to calculate
taxes, and to aPPortion shares of a harvest to the liarmer, church'
and state'
The division of fi.Id, and inheritances led to algebraic problems' The
majority of the cuneiform texts involving mathematics (exclusive of t}rc
with economic problems' There
tubi., .rrd problem texts) were concerned 5
no doubt as to the influence of economics on the development of arithmetic
in the older period.
Canals,'dams, and other irrigation projects required calculations' The
use of bricks raised numerous numerical and geometrical
problems' Volumes
of granaries and buildings and the areas of fields had to be determined' The
cloie relationship betwein Babylonian mathematics and practical problems
is typified by the following: A canal whose cross'section was a trapezoid and
who-se dimensions were known was to be dug. The amount of digging one
man could do in a day was known, as was the sum of the number of men
employed and the days they worked' The problem was to calculate the
number of men and the number of days of work'
Because the connection between mathematics and astronomy became
vital from Greek times on, we shall note what the Babylonians knew and did
in astronomy. Nothing is known about Sumerian astronomy, and the as-
tronomy of tire Akkadian period was crude and qualitative; the development
of mathematics preceded the development of any significant astronomy' In
the Assyrian period (about 700 a'c.), astronomy did begin to include
mathe-
maticai description of phenomena and a systematic compilation of observa-
tionaldata.Theuseolmathematicsincreasedinthelastthreecenturiesn.c.
and was directed especially to the study of lunar and planetary motion'
Most
astronomical texts are from this Seleucid period' They fall into two SrouPs'
12 MATHEMATICS IN MESOPOTAMIA
procedural texts and ephemerides, tables of positions of the heavenly bodies

at various times. The procedural texts show how to compute the ephemerides.
The arithmetic behind the lunar and solar observations shows that the
Babylonians calculated first and second differences of successive data, ob-
served the constancy of the first or second differences, and extrapolated or
interpolated data. Their procedure was equivalent to using the fact that the
data can be fit by polynomial functions and enabled them to predict the
daily positions of the planets. They knew the periods of the planets with some
accuracy, and also used eclipses as a basis for calculation. There was, how-
ever, no geometrical scheme of planetary or lunar motion in Babylonian
astronomy.
The Babylonians ofthe Seleucid period did have extensive tables on the
motions of the sun and moon which gave variable velocities and positions.
Also special conjunctions and eclipses of sun and moon were either in the
data or readily obtained from them. Astronomers could predict the new
moon and eclipses to within a few minutes. Their data indicate that they
knew the length of the solar or tropical year (the year of the seasons) to be
12 + 22160 + 8/60, months (from new moon to new moon) and the length
of the sidereal year (the time for the sun to regain the same position relative
to the stars) to within 4 1/2 minutes.
The constellations that lent their names to the twelve signs of the zodiac
were known earlier but the zodiac itself first appears in a text in 419 s.c.
Each sector of the zodiac was a 30o arc. Positions of planets in the sky were
fixed by reference to the stars and also by position in the zodiac.
Astronomy served many purposes. For one thing, it was needed to keep
a calendar, which is determined by the positions of the sun, moon, and stars.
The year, the month, and the day are astronomical quantities, which had
to be obtained accurately to know planting times and religious holidays. In
Babylonia, partly because of the connection of the calendar with religious
holidays and ceremonies and partly because the heavenly bodies were be-
lieved to be gods, the priests kept the calendar.
The calendar was lunar. The month began when the crescent first
appeared after the moon was fully dark (our new rnoon). The day began in
tle evening of the first appearance of the crescent and lasted from sunset to
sunset. The lunar calendar is difficult to maintain because, although it is
convenient to have the month contain an integral number of days, lunar
months, reckoned as the time between successive conjunctions of sun dnd
moon (that is, from new moon to new moon), vary from 29 to 30 days.
Hence a problem arises in deciding which months are to have 29 and which
30. A more important problem is making the lunar calendar agree with the
seasons. The answer is quite complicated because it depends upon the paths
and velocities of the moon and sun. The lunar calendar contained extra
montls intercalated so that 7 such intercalations in each 19 years just aDoul
EVALUATION OF BABYLONIAN MATHEMATICS 13
kept the lunar calendar in time with the solar year. Thus 235 lunar months
were equal to 19 solar years. The summer solstice was systematically com-
puted, and the winter solstice and the equinoxes were placed at equal
intervals. This calendar was used by theJews and Greeks and by the Romans
up to 45 B.c., the year the Julian calendar was adopted.
The division of the circle into 360 units originated in the Babylonian
astronomy ofthe last centuries before the Christian era. It had nothing to do
with the earlier use of base 60; however, base 60 was used to divide the
degree and the minute into 60 parts. The astronomer Ptolemy (2nd cent.
a.o.) followed the Babylonians in this practice.
Closely connected with astronomy was astrology' In Babylonia, as in
many ancient civilizations, the heavenly bodies were thought to be gods and
so were presumed to have influence and even control over the affairs of man.
When one takes into account the imPortance of the sun for light, heat, and
the growth of plants, the dread inspired by its eclipses, and such seasonal
phenomena as the mating of animals, one can well understand the belief that
the heavenly bodies do affect even the daily events in man's life.
Pseudoscientific schemes of prediction in ancient civilizations did not
always involve astronomy. Numbers themselves had mystic properties and
could be used to make predictions. One finds some Babylonian usages in the
Book of Daniel and in the writings of the Old and New Testament prophets.
The Hebrew "science" of gematria (a form of cabbalistic mysticism) was
based on the fact that each letter ofthe alphabet had a number value because
the Hebrews used letters to represent numbers. If the sum of the numerical
values of the letters in two words was the same' an imPortant connection
between the two ideas or people or events rePresented by the words was
inferred. In the prophecy of Isaiah (21:B), the Iion proclaims the fall of
Babylon because the letters in the Hebrew word for lion and those in the
word for Babylon add up to the same sum.
8. Eaaluation of Babylonian Mathematics

The Babylonians' use of special terms and symbols for unknowns, their
employment of a lew operational symbols, and their solution of a few types
ofequations involving one or more unknowns, especially quadratic equations,
constituted a start in algebra. Their development of a systematic way of
writing whole numbers and fractions enabled them to carry arithmetic to a
fairly advanced stage and to employ it in many Practical situations, especially
in astronomy. They possessed some numerical and what we would call
algebraic skill in the solution ol special equations of high degree, but on the
whole their arithmetic and algebra were very elementary. Though they
worked with concrete numbers and problems, they evidenced a partial grasp
r4
of abstract mathematics in their recognition that some procedures were
typical of certain classes of equations.
The question arises as to what extent the Babylonians employed
mathematical proof. They did solve by correct systematic procedures rather
complicated equations involving unknowns. However, they gave verbal in-
structions only on the steps to be made and offered no justification of the
steps, Almost surely, the arithmetic and algebraic processes and the geomet-
rical rules were the end result of physical evidence, trial and error, and in-
sight. That the methods worked was sufficient justification to the Babylonians
for their continued use. The concept of proot the notion ofa logical structure
based on principles warranting acceptance on one ground or another, and
the consideration of such questions as under what conditions solutions to
problems can exist, are not found in Babylonian mathematics.
Bibliography
Bell, E. T.: TIU Dculopmcnt of Matlumatics,2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, Chaps. l-2.
Boyer, Carl B.z A History oJ Matlumatics, John Wiley and Sons, 1968, Chap. 3.
Cantor, Moritz: Vorlcs'ungcn ilber Gcschichtc der Matlumatik, 2nd ed., B. G. Teubner,
1894, Vol. I, Chap. l.
Chiera, E.: Tluy Wok on Clay, Chicago University Press, 1938.
Childe, V. Gordon: Man Makes Himscfi, New American Library, 1951, Chaps. 6-8.
Dantzig, Tobiasz Numbcr: Thc Languagc oJ Sciercc, 4th ed., Macmillan, 1954,
Chaps. l-2.
Karpinski, Louis C.: Tlu Histoty of Arithmctic, Rand McNally, 1925.
Menninger, K,t Numbcr Words and Numbcr Sgmbols: A Cultural History of Numbcrs,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1969.
Neugebauer, Ottol Tlu Etact Scitnces in Antiquitg, Princeton University Press, 1952,
Chaps. l-3 and 5.
Vorgri.echischc Matlumatik, Julius Springer, 1934, Chaps. l-3 and 5.
Sarton, George: A History of Scicnce, Harvard University Press, 1952, Vol. l, Chap,3.
The Studg of tlu History of Matlumatirs and tlu History of Scictuc, Dover
(reprint), 1954.
Smith, David Eugene: History oJ Matlumatics, Dover (repriat), 1958, Vol. l,
Chap. l.
Struik, Dirk J.: A Concise Historg of Mathzmatics, 3rd ed., Dover, 1967, Chaps. l-2.
van der Waerden, B. L.: Sciztuc Awakcning, P. Noordhoff, 1954, Chaps, 2-3.
2
Egyptian Mathematics
All science, logic and mathematics included, is a function

of the epoch-all science, in its ideals as well as in its
achievements. E. H. MooRE
l. Background
While Mesopotamia experienced many changes in its ruling peoples, with
resultin! new cultural influences, the Egyptian civilization developed un-
affected-5y foreign influences. The origins of the civilization are unknown but
it surely existed even before 4000 r.c. Egypt, as the Greek historian Hero-
dotus says, is a gift of the Nile. Once a year this river, drawing its water from
the soutir, floods the territory aII along its banks and leaves behind rich soil.
Most of the people did and still do make their living by tilling this soil. The
rest of the country is desert.
There were two kiagdomq, one in the north and one in t]re south of what
is present-day Egypt. Some time between 3500 and 3000,p'c', -the..- ryler,
Mirra, or Menq, unifiod'trpper and lower Egygt' From this time on the
major 'ireriods oi Egyptian history are referred to in terms of the nrling
dyiasties, Menes having been the founder of the first dyt'ttty' The height of
Egyptian culture occurred during the third dynasty (about 2500 r'c'),
arlring which period the rulers built the pyramids. The civilization went its
o*r, iuy until Alexander the Great conquered it in 332 r'c' Thereafter,
until about e.o. 600, its history and mathematics belong to the Greek
civilization. Thus, apart from one minor invasion by the Hyksoc (1700-
1600 r.c.) and slight contact with the Babylonian civilization (inferred from
the discovery in the Nile valley of the cuneiform Tell al-Amarna tablets of
about 1500 a.c.), Egyptian civilization was the product of its native people'
The ancient egyPtians developed their own systems of writing' One
system, hieroglyphics, was pictorial, that is, each symbol was a picture of
some olject. Hi.roglyphicr were used on monuments until about the time of
christ. From about 2500 B.c. the Egyptians used for daily purposes what is
called hieratic writing. This system employed conventional symbols, which
at fi.rst were merely simplifications of the hieroglyphics. Hieratic writing is
I5
\
I6 ,t\
EGYPTIAN MATHEMATICS
<alnd
syllabic; each syllable is represented by an ideogram and an entire word is
a collection ofideograms. The meaning of the word is not tied to the separate
ideograms.
The writing was done with ink on papyrus, sheets made by pressing the
pith of a plant and then slicing it. Since papyrus dries up and crtLmbles,
very few documents of ancient Egypt have syrvived, apart from the hiero-
glyphic inscriptions on stone.
' ."The main surviving mathematical documents are two sizable papyri:
the Moscow papyrus, which is in Moscow, and the Rhind papyrus, dis-
covered in I858 by a Britisher, Henry Rhind, and now in the British Museum.
The Rhind papyrus is also known as the Ahmes papyrus after its author, who
opens with the words " Directions for Obtaining the Knowledge olAll Dark
Things." Both papyri date from about 1700 e.c. There are also fragments of
other papyri written at this time and later. The mathematical papyri were
written by scribes who were workers in the Egyptian state and church
administrations.
The papyri contain problems and their solutions-85 in the Rhind
papyrus and 25 in the Moscow papyrus. Presumably such problems occurred
in the work ofthe scribes and they were expected to know how to solve them.
It is most likely that the problems in the two major papyri were intended
as examples of typical problems and solutions. Though these papyri date
from about l-700 r.q., the mathematics in them wai k.,o*n to the Egyptians
as far back as 3500 n.c., and little was added from that time to the Greek
conquest.
2. The Arithmetic
The hieroglyphic number symbols used by the Egyptians were l for .l;
f \AJ
fl for 10, Q and 9 for 100, I for 1000, dl fo. to,OoO,andother
symbols for larger units. These symbols were combined to form intermediate
numbers. The direction of the writing was from right to left, so that I I I lnn
represented 24. This system of writing numbers uses the base l0 but is not
positional.
Egyptian hieratic whole numbers are illustrated by the following
_"l
symbols:
U til rrl L- (tte A

23456 l0
The arithmetic was essentially additive. For ordinary additions and suS-
traclions they could simply combine or take away symbols to reach the proper
C r7
THE AR-ITHMETI
result. Multiplication and division were also reduced to additive processes'

To calculate 12 times 12, say, the Egyptians did the following:
t12
224
448
B 96.
Each line was derived from the preceding one by doubling' Now since
4. 12 : 48 and B' 12 : 96, adding 48 and 96 gave the value of 12' 12' This
process was, of course, quite different from multiplying by l0 and by 2
and
uaairrg. Multiplication Ly 10 was also performed and consisted of replacing
.r-rrri, ri-Uls by the symbol for l0 and replacing the l0 symbol by the symbol
for 100.
Division of one whole number by another as carried out by the Egyptians
is equally interesting. For example, 19 was divided by B as follows:
I
2. ,, 16'
ttz: 4
Lr4. - 2
1/8 I
the
Therefore, the answer was 2 * ll4 + ll8' The idea was simply to take
number of eights and parts of eight that totaled 19'
The den"otation oi fru,.tiorrrln the Egyptian number system was much
more complicated than our own. The symbol .-' pronounced ro' which
originally indicated ll32O of a bushel, came to denote a fraction' In hieratic
-numberby
wri"ting ih" o't al was replaced a dot' The 3 or dot was generally
plu""i ubou. the whole to indicate the fraction' Thus' in hiero-
glyphic writing,
ol o- l. .-lll l.
lll : E'
ilJ n:m' n ll --15
A few fractions were denoted by special s1'rnbols' Thus the hieroglyph '-
denoted l12; 7,213; and' x,ll4'
Aside from a few special ones, all fractions were decomposed
into what
.are called unit fractions. Thus Ahmes writes 2/5 as l/3 + 1/15. The plus
a
rig" aia not appear but was understood' The Rhind paPyrus contains from
i"ii" f". "*pr"rrirrg fractions with numerator 2 and odd denominators
5 to l0l ur r',r-, oifractions with numerator l'
By means of this table a frac-
integer
tio, ,,r"h as otr 7l29,which to Ahmes is the integer 7 divided by the :
Inasmuch as7 2I
29, could also be expressed as a sum of unit fractions'
to a sum of fractions with
2 + 2 + l, he proceeds by converting each 2129
,rr.*.r.to.'1. By combining these results and by further conversion he ends
I8 EGYPTIAN MATHEMATICS
up with a sum of unit fractions, each with a diflerent denominator. The final
expression for 7 129 is
tll -r
tl
-_r--J--
6' 24' 58 - 'a7'232
-,1-
-.
It so happens that 7129 can also be expressed as l/5 + l/29 + l/145, but
because Ahmes' 2ln table leads to the former expression, this is the one used.
The expression of ow alb as a sum of unit fractions was done systematically
according to age-old procedures. Using unit fractions, the Egyptians could
carry out the four arithmetic operations with fractions. The extensive and
complicated computations with fractions were one reason the Egyptians
never developed arithmetic or algebra to an advanced state.
The nature of irrational numbers was not recognized in Egyptian
arithmetic any more than it was in the Babylonian. The simple square roots
that occurred in algebraic problems could be and were expressed in terms of
whole numbers and fractions,
3. Algebra and Gcornetr)

The papyri contain solutions of problems involving an unknown that are in
the main comparable to our linear equations in one unknown. Ilowever, the
processes were purely arithmetical and did not, in Egyptian minds, amount to
a distinct subject, the solution of equations. The problems were stated
verbally with bare directions for obtaining the solutions and without ex-
planation of why the methods were used or why they worked. For e:<ample,
problem 3l of the Ahmes papyrus, translated literally, reads: "A quantity,
its 2/3, its Ll2, its ll7, its whole, amount to 33." This means, for us:
2x
5*+' +|+x:sz.
Simple arithmetic of the Egyptian variety gives the solution in this case.
Problem 63 ofthe papyrus runs as follows: " Directions for dividing 700
breads among four people, 2/3 for one, 1/2 for the second, l/3 for the third,
l/4 for the fourth." For us this means
2lIl
i* * ix + ;x + jx :7o0.
Thc solution, as given by Ahmes,.is: "Add?r,i,!u,i. rr* gives r | |.
Divide I o, ti i rhis gives
| fi. No* n,,a | |* "rzoo. rhis is 400."
Insome solutions Ahmes uses the " rule of false position." Thus to
determine five numbers in arithmetic progresion subject to a further con-
dition and such that the sum is 100, he first chooses /, the common dG
ALGEBRA AND GEOMETR,Y
r9
ference, to be 5 t/2 times the smallest number' He then picks I as the smallest
.rrd g"i, the progression : 1,6 ll2, 12, 17 112,23' But these numbers add up
to 6dwhereas th-ey should add up to 100. He then multiplies each term by
513.
Only the simplest types of quadratic equations, such as atf
: bt arc
considered. Even when two unknowns occur, the type is
x2 + Y2 : 1gg' :9f *'

'
so that after eliminating y, the equation in r reduces to the first type' Some
concrete problems inrrolvirrg arithmetic and geometric progressions also can
be found in the papyri. To it fer general rules from all these problems and
solutions is not very difficult.
The limited Egyptian algebra employed practically no symbolism' In
the Ahmes p.py.rr, and subtraction are represented respectively by
"idition
the legs of a man coming and going'-'/l andA' and the symbol
l-is used
to denote square root.
Wnat of Egyptian geometry ? The Egyptians did not separate arith-
metic and g.o--"i.y. W. n"a problems from both fields in the papyri'
Like
the Babyloiians, the Egyptians regarded geometry as a practical tool' One
and algebra to the problems involving areas'
-and arithmetic
merely applied
volumes, other geometrical situations' Egyptian geometry is said by-
Herodoius to have originated in the need created by the annual overflow
of
the Nile to redetermine the boundaries of the lands owned by the farmers.
However, Babylonia did as much in geometry without such a need' The
trape-
Egyptians had lrescriptions for the areas of rectangles, triangles' and
zo"ids. In the case of the area of a triangle, though they
multiplied one
number by half another, we cannot be sure that the method is correct
because we arg rrot sure from the words used whether the
lengths multiplied
were so
stood for base and altitude or just for two sides' Also the figures
poorly drawn that one cannot be sure ofjust what area or volume were
good'
ieing found. Their calculation of the area of a circle, surprisingly
folloied the formula A : (Sdlqz where / is the diameter' This amounts to
using 3.1605 for z.
"A., may illustrate the "accuracy" of Egyptian formulas for
"*u-pl"
area. On the walls of a temple in Edfu is a list of fields that were
gifts to the
temple. These fields g.t ...Ily have four sides, which we shall denote by
a, bi c, d,where a and , a.td c and' d are pairs of opposite sides' The inscrip-
gP 9+4 But some fields
tions give the area of these various fields as
In this case, d is said to be nothing and the calculation is changed
are triangles.
,o @ t, .i. Even for quadrangles the rule is just a crude approximation'

O)
20 EGYPTIAN MATHEMATICS
The Egyptians also had rules for the volume of a cube, box, cylinder,
and other figures. Some ol the rules were correct and others only approxi-
mations. The papyri give as the volume of a truncated conical clepsydra
(water clock), in our notation,
,: #G@ + d)) \2
where i is the height and (D + d)12 is the mean circumference. This

formula amounts to using 3 for r.
The most striking rule of Egyptian geometry is the one for the volume
of a truncated pyramid of square base, which in modern notation is
n:LuA, + ab + br),
where I is the height and a and D are sides of top and bottom. The formula is
surprising because it is correct and because it is symmetrically expressed (but
of course not in our notation). It is given only for concrete numbers. How-
ever, we do not know whether the pyramid was square-based or not because
the figure in the papyrus is not carefully drawn.
Neither do we know whether the Egyptians recognized the Pythagorean
theorem. We know there were rope-stretchers, that is, suryeyors, but the
story that they used a rope knotted at points to divide the total length into
parts ofratios 3 to 4 to 5, which could then be used to form a right triangle,
is not confirmed in any document.
The rules were not expressed in symbols. The Egyptians stated the
problems verbally; and their procedure in solving them was essentially what
we do .when we calculate according to a formula. Thus an almost literal
translation of the geometrical problem of finding the volume of the frustum
of a pyramid reads: "If you are told: a truncated pyramid of 6 for the verti-
cal height by 4 on the base, by 2 on the top. You are to square this 4, result
16, You are to double, result B. You are to square 2, result 4. You are to add
the 16, and 8, and the 4, result 28. You are to take one-third of 6, result 2.
You are to take 28 twice, result 56. See, it is 56. You will find it right."
Did the Egyptians know proofs or justifications of their procedures and
formulas ? One belief is that the Ahmes papyrus was written in the style of a
textbook for students of that day and hence, even though no general rules or
principles for solving types of equations were formulated by Ahmes, it is
very Iikely that he knew them but wanted the student to formulate them
himself or have a teacher formulate them for him. Under this view the
Ahmes papyrus is a rather advanced arithmetic text. Others say it is the
notebook of a pupil. In either case, the papyri almost surely recorded
the types of problems that had to be solved by business and administrative
clerks, and the methods of solution were just practical rules known by ex-
perience to work. No one believes that the Egyptians had a deductive
(+$\\\.,
EGYPTIAN USES OF MATHEMATICS 2l
structure based on sound axioms that established the correctness of their

rules.
4, Egyptian Usu of Mathematics

The Egyptians used mathematics in the administration of the aflairs of thc-
state and church, to determine wages paid to laborers, to find the volumes ol
granaries and the areas of fields, to collect taxes assessed according to the'
land area, to convert from one system of measures to another, and to calcu-
late the number ofbricks needed for the construction ofbuildings and ramps'
The papyri also contain problems dealing with the amounts of corn needed
to make given quantities of beer and the amount of corn of one quality
needed to give the same result as corn of another quality whose strength
relative to the first is known.
As in Babylonia a major use of mathematics was in astronomy, -which
dates from the first dynasty. Astronomical knowledge r /as essential. To the
Egyptian the Nile was his life's blood. He made his Iiving by tilling the soil
which the Nile covered with rich silt in its annual overflow. However, he had
to be well prepared for the dangerous aspects of the flood ; his home, equip-
ment, and cattle had to be temporarily removed from the area and arrange-
ments made for sowing immediately afterwards. Hence the coming of the
flood had to be predicted, which was done by learning what heavenly events
preceded it.
q* Astronomy also made the calendar possible. Beyond the need for a
I calendar in commerce was the need to predict religious holidays. It was
believed essential, to ensure the goodwill of the gods, that holidays be cele-
i
brated at the proper time. As in Babylonia, keeping the calendar was largely
the task of the priests.
The Egyptians arrived at their estimate of the length of the solar year
by observing the star Sirius. On one day in the summer this star became
visible on the horizon just before sunrise. On suiceeding days it was visible
for a longer time before the sun's growing light blotted it out. The first day
on which it was visible just before sunrise was known as the heliacal rising
of Sirius, and the interval between two such days was about 365 l/4 days; so
the Egyptians adopted, supposedly in, 4241 n.c., a civil calendar of 365 days
for the year. The concentration on Sirius is undoubtedly accounted for by
the fact that the waters of the Nile began to rise on that day, which was
chosen as the first day of the Year.
The 365-day year was divided into 12 months of 30 days, plus 5 extra
days at the end. Because the Egyptians did not intercalate the additional day
every four years, the civil calendar lost all relation to the seasons. It takes
1460 years for the calendar to set itself right again; this interval is known as
the Sothic cycle, from the Egyptian name for Sirius' Whether the Egyptians
22 EGYPTIAN MATHEMAIICS
knew ofthe Sothic cycle is oPen to question. Their calendar was adopted by
Julius Caesar in 45 r.c., but changed to a 365 I l4-d'ay year on the advice of
the Alexandrian Greek Sosigenes. Though the Egyptian determination ofthe
year and the calendar were valuable contributions, they did not result from
a well-developed astronomy, which in fact was crude and far inferior to
Babylonian astronomy.
The Egyptians combined their knowledge of astronomy and geometry
to construct their temples in such a manner that on certain days of the year
the sun would strike them in a particular way' Thus some were built so that
on the longest day of the year the sun would shine directly into the templeand
illuminate the god at the altar. This orientation of temples is also found to
some extent among the Babylonians and Greeks. The pyramids too were
oriented to special directions of the heavens, and the Sphinx faces east.
While the details of the construction of these works are unimportant for us,
it is worth noting that the pyramids rePresent another application of Egyp-
tian geometry. They are the tombs of kings; and because the Egyptians
believed in immortality they believed that the proper construction of a tomb
was material licr the dead person's afterlife. In fact, an entire aPartment for
the future residence of king and queen was installed in each pyramid. They
took great care to make the bases of the pyramids of the correct shape; the
relative dimensions of base and height were also highly significant. However,
one should not overemphasize the comple>rity or depth ofthe ideas involved.
Egyptian mathematics was simple and crude and no deep principles were
ivolved, contrary to what is often asserted.
5, Summary
Let us review the status of mathematics before the Greeks enter the picture.
We find in the Babylonian and Egyptian civilizations an arithmetic of
integers and fractions, including positional notation, the beginnings of
algebra, and some empirical fiormulas in geometry. There was almost no
symbolism, hardly any conscious thought about abstractions, no formulation
of general methodology, and no concept of proof or even of plausible argu-
ments that might convince one of the correctness of a procedure or formula.
There was, in fact, no conception of any kind of theoretical science.
Apart from a few incidental results in Babylonia, mathematics in the
two civilizations was not a distinct discipline, nor was it pursued for its own
sake. It was a tool in the form of disconnected, simple rules which answered
questions arising in the daily life of the peoPle. Certainly nothing was done
in mathematics that altered or affected the way of life. Although Babylonian
mathematics was more advanced than the Egyptian, about the best one can
say for both is that they showed some vigor, if not rigor, and more per-
severance than brilliance'
BIBLIOGRAPITY 23
All evaluation implies some sort of standard. It may be unfair but it is

natural to compare the two civilizations with the Greek, which succeeded
them. By this standard the Eglprians aadG4EEglmtere crude carpenters,
whereas the Greeks were magnificent architects, one docs find more favor-
able, even laudatory, descriptions of the @!g!qg!rilC Egyptian achieve-
menis. But these are made by specialists who become, perhaps unconsciously,
overimpressed by their own field of interest'
Bibliography
Boyer, Carl B.: A History of Matlumatits, John Wiley and Sons, 1968, Chap' 2'
Cantor, Moritz: Voilcsungen ltber Gcschichtc dcr Matlumatik, 2nd ed', B' G' Teubner'
1894, Vol' l, ChaP. 3.
-i,,
Chace, A. ,r ol., eds.t Ttu Mind Mathcmatical Papras,2 vols', Mathematical
Association of America, 1927-29 '
Childe, V. Gordon: Man Malees Himself, New American Library, l95l'
Karpinski, Louis C': The History of Arithmatb, Rand McNally, 1925'
Neu-gebauer, O,z Tlu Exact Sci.cntcs in Antiquity, Princeton Univenity Press, 1952'
ChaP. 4.
Vorgicchischc Matlumatik, Julius Springer, 1934'
Sarton, George : A History of Seitncc, Harvard University Prcss, 1952, VoI' l'
Chap. 2.
Smith, David Eugene: History of Matlumatbs, Dover (reprint), 1958, Vol' l'
Chap. 2; Vol. 2, ChaPs. 2 all'd' 4,
van der Waerden, B. L.: Scbuc Awakning, P' Noordhoff, 1954, Chap'
l'
3
The Creation of Classical
Greek Mathematics
This, therefore, is mathematics: she reminds you of the in-

visible form of the soul; she gives life to her own discoveries;
she awakens the mind and purifies the intellect; she brings
light to our intrinsic ideas; she abolishes oblivion and ig-
norance which are ours by birth. pRocLUs
l. Background
In the history of civilization the Greeks are preeminerrt, and in the history
of mathematics the Greeks are the supreme event. Though they did borrow
from the surrounding civilizations, the Greeks built a civilization and culture
of their own which is the most impressive of all civilizations, the most in-
fluential in the development of modern Western culture, and decisive in
founding mathematics as we understand the subject today. One of the great
problems ofthe history ofcivilization is how to account for the brilliance and
creativity of the ancient Greeks.
Though our knowledge oftheir early history is subject to correction and
amplification as more archeological research is carried on, we now have
reason to believe, on the basis of the lliad and the Odgssey of Homer, the
decipherment of ancient languages and scripts, and archeological investiga-
tions, that the Greek civilization dates back to 2800 a.c. The Greeks settled
in Asia Minor, which may have been their original home, on the mainland
ofEurope in the area of modern Greece, and in southern Italy, Sicily, Crete,
Rhodes, Delos, and North Africa. About 775 B.c. the Greeks replaced various
hieroglyphic systems of writing with the Phoenician alphabet (which was
also used by the Hebrews). With the adoption of an alphabet the Greeks
became more literate, more capable of recording their history and ideas.
As the Greeks became established they visited and traded with the
Egyptians and Babylonians. There are many references in classical Greek
writings to the knowledge of the Egyptians, whom some Greeks erroneously
considered the founders of science, particulariy surveying, astronomy, and
24
TIIE GENERAL SOURCES 25
arithmetic. Many Greeks went to Egypt to travel and study. Others visited
Babylonia and learned mathematics and science there.
The influence of the Egyptians and Babylonians was almost surely felt
in Miletus, a city of Ionia in Asia Minor and the birthplace of Greek phil-
osophy, mathematics, and science. Miletus was a great and wealthy trading
city on the Mediterranean. Ships from the Greek mainland, Phoenicia, and
Egypt came to its harbors; Babylonia was connected by caravan routes
leading eastward. Ionia fell to Persia about 540 B.c', though Miletus was
allowed some independence. After an Ionian revolt against Persia in 494 s'c'
was crushed, Ionia declined in importance. It became Greek again in 479 r'c'
when Greece defeated Persia, but by then cultural activity had shifted to the
mainland of Greece with Athens as its center.
Though the ancient Greek civilization lasted until about a'o' 600, from
the standpoint of the history of mathematics it is desirable to distinguish two
periods, the classical, which lasted from 600 to 300 r.c., and the Alexandrian
or Hellenistic, from 300 B.c. to A.D. 600. The adoption of the alphabet,
akeady mentioned, and the fact that PaPyrus became available in Greece
during the seventh century B.c. may account for the blossoming of cultural
activity about 600 B.c. The availability of this writing paper undoubtedly
helped the spread of ideas.
2. The General Sources

The sources of our knowledge of Greek mathematics are, peculiarly, less
authentic and less reliable than our sources for the much older Babylonian
and Egyptian mathematics, because no original manuscripts of the important
Greek mathematicians are extant. One reason is that papyrus is perishable;
though the Egyptians also used paPyrus' by luck a few oftheir mathematical
documents did survive. some of the voluminous Greek writings might still
be available to us if their great libraries had not been destroyed'
Our chief sources for the Greek mathematical works are Byzantine
Greek codices (manuscript books) written from 500 to 1500 years after the
Greek works were originally composed. These codices are not literal repro-
ductions but critical editions, so that we cannot be sure what changes may
have been made by the editors. we also have Arabic translations of the Greek
works and Latin versions derived from Arabic works. Here again we do not
know what changes the translators may have made or how well they under-
stood the original texts. Moreover, even the Greek texts used by the Arabic
and Byzantine authors were questionable. For example, though we do not
have ti,e Alexandrian Greek F{eron's manuscript, we know that he made a
number of changes in Euclid's Elements.IIe gave different proofs and added
new cases of the theorems and converses. Likewise Theon of Alexandria (end
of 4th cent. A.D.) tells us that he altered sections of the Elements in his edition.
26 TrrE cREAfioN oF cLAssrcAL GREEK MATHEMATTCS
The Greek and Arabic versions we have may come from such versions of the
originals. Ffowever, in one or another of these forms we do have the works
of Euclid, Apollonius, Archimedes, Ptolemy, Diophantus, and other Greek
authors. Many Greek texts written during the classical and Alexandrian
periods did not come down to us because even in Greek times they were
superseded by the writings of these men.
The Greeks wrote some histories of mathematics and science. Eudemus
(4th cent. r.c.), a member of Aristotle's school, wrote a history of arithmetic,
a history of geometry, and a history of astronomy. Except for fragments
quoted by later writers, these histories are lost. The history ofgeometry dealt
with the period preceding Euclid's and would be invaluable were it available.
Theophrastus (c. 372-+. 287 r.c.), another disciple of Aristotle, wrote a
history of physics, and this, too, except for a few fragments, is lost.
In addition to the above, we have two important commentaries.
Pappus (end of 3rd cent. a.o.) wrote the Sgnagoge or Matlumatical Collecti.on;
almost the whole of it is extant in a twelfth-century copy. This is an account
of much of the work of the classical and Alexandrian Greeks from Euclid to
Ptolemy, supplemented by a number of lemmas and theorems that Pappus
added as an aid to understanding. Pappus had also written the Treasury oif
Analysis, a collection of the Greek works themselves. This book is lost, but in
Book VII of his Matlumatical Collecti.on he tells us what his Treasurg contained.
The second important commentator is Proclus (e.o. 410-485), a prolific
writer. Proclus drew material from the texts of the Greek mathematicians
and from prior commentaries, Of his surviving works, the Commentarg, which
treats Book I of Euclid's Elements, is the most valuable. Proclus apparently
intended to discuss more of the Elements, but there is no evidence that he ever
did so. The Commcntarg contains one of the three quotations traditionally
credited to Eudemus'history of geometry (see sec. l0) but probably taken
from a later modification. This particular extract, the longest of the three, is
referred to as the Eudemian summary. Proclus also tells us something about
Pappus' work. Thus, besides the later editions and versions of some of the
Greek classics themselves, Pappus' Matlumatical Collection and Proclus' Coz-
fluntarg are the two main sources of the history of Greek mathematics.
Of original wordings (though not the manuscripts) we have only a
fragment concerning the lunes of Hippocrates, quoted by Simplicius (first
half of 6th cent. e.o.) and taken from Eudemus' lost Histnry of Geometrg, arld,
a fragment of Archytas on the duplication of the cube. And of original manu-
scripts we have some papyri written in Alexandrian Greek times. Related
sources on Greek mathematics are also immensely valuable. For example,
the Greek philosophers, especially Plato and Aristotle, had much to say about
mathematics and their writings have survived somewhat in the same way as
have the mathematical works.
The reconstruction ofthe history ofGreek mathematics, based on sources
TUE MAJOR SCHOOT,S OF Tr{E CLASSTCAL PERTOD 27
such as we have described, has been an enormous and complicated task.

Despite the extensive eflorts ofscholars, there are gaps in our knowledge and
some conclusions are arguable. Nevertheless the basic facts are clear.
3. The Major Schools 0f the Classiral Period

The cream of the classical period's contributions are Euclid's Elemcnts and
Apollonius' Conic Sections. Appreciation of these works requires some knowl-
edge of the great changes made in the very nature of mathematics and of the
problems the Greeks faced and solved. Moreover, these polished works give
little indication of the three hundred years of creative activity preceding
them or of the issues which became vital in the subsequent history.
Classical Greek mathematics developed in several centers that succeeded
one another, each building on the work of its predecessors. At each center
an informal group of scholars carried on its activities under one or more
great leaders. This kind of organization is common in modern times also and
its reason for being is understandable. Today, when one great man locates at
a particular place-generally a university---other scholars follow, to learn
from the master.
The first of the schools, the Ionian, was founded by Thales (c- ilO-
c. 546 a.c.) in Miletus. We do not know the full extent to which Thales may
have educated others, but we do know that the philosophers Anaximander
(c. 610-+. 547 n.c.) and Anaximenes (c. 550-480 r.c.) were his pupils.
Anaxagoras (c. 500-c. 428 s.c.) belonged to this school, and Pythagoras
(c. 585-c, 500 a.c.) is supposed to have learned mathematics from Thales.
Pythagoras then formed his own large school in southern Italy. Toward the
end of the sixth century, Xenophanes of Colophon in Ionia migrated to
Sicily and founded a center to which the philosophers Parmenides (Sth
cent. B.c.) and. Zeno (5th cent. a.c') belonged. The latter two resided in
Elea in southern Italy, to which the school had moved, and so the group
became known as the Eleatic school. The Sophists, active from the latter
half of the fifth century onward, were concentrated mainly in Athens.
The most celebrated school is the Academy of Plato in Athens, where
Aristotle was a student. The Academy had unparalleled importance for
Greek thought. Its pupils and associates were the Sreatest philosophers,
mathematicians, and astronomers of their age; the school retained its pre-
eminence in philosophy even after the leadership in mathematics passed to
Alexandria. Eudoxus, who learned mathematics chiefly from Archytas of
Tarentum (Sicily), founded his own school in Cyzicus, a city of northern
Asia Minor. When Aristotle left Plato's Academy he founded another school,
the Lyceum, in Athens. The Lyceum is commonly referred to as the Peri-
patetic school. Not all of the great mathematicians of the classical period can
Le identified with a school, but for the sake of coherence we shall occasionally
28 TIIE CREATIoN OF CLAssIcAL GREEK MATIIBMATICS
discuss the work ofa man in connection with a particular school even though
his association with it was not close.
4. The loni.an School

The leader and founder of this school was Thales. Though there is no sure
knowledge about Thales' life and work, he probably was born and Iived in
Miletus. He traveled extensively and for a while resided in Egypt, where he
carried on business activities and reportedly learned much about Egyptian
mathematics. He is, incidentally, supposed to have been a shrewd business-
man. During a good season for olive growing, he cornered all the olive
presses in Miletus and Chios and rented them out at a high fee. Thales is
said to have predicted an eclipse ofthe sun in 585 4.c., but this is disputed on
the ground that astronomical knowledge was not adequate at that time.
He is reputed to have calculated the heights of pyramids by comparing
their shadows with the shadow cast by a stick of known height at the same
time. By some such use of similar triangles he is supposed to have calculated
the distance of a ship from shore. He is also credited with having made
mathematics abstract and with having given deductive proofs for some
theorems. These last two claims, however, are dubious, Discovery of the
attractive power of magnets and of static electricity is also attributed to
Thales.
The Ionian school warrants only brief mention so far as contributions
to mathematics proper are concerned, but its importance for philosophy and
the philosophy of science in particular is unparalleled (see Chap. 7, sec.2).
The school declined in importance when the Persians conquered the area.
5. The Pythagoreans
The torch was picked up by Pythagoras who, supposedly having learned
from Thales, founded his own school in Croton, a Greek settlement in
southern Italy. There are no written works by the Pythagoreans I we know
about them through the writings of others, including Plato and Herodotus.
In particular we ate hazy about the personal life of Pythagoras and his
followers; nor can we be sure of what is to be credited to him personally or
to his followers. Hence when one speaks ofthe work of Pythagoras one really
refers to the work done by the group between 585 r.c., the rePuted date of
his birth, and roughly 400 g.c. Philolaus (5th cent. s.c.) and Archytas
(428-347 a.c.) were prominent members of this school.
Pythagoras was born on the island of Samos, just off the coast of Asia
Minor. After spending some time with Thales in Miletus, he traveled to other
places, including Egypt and Babylon, where he may have picked up some
mathematics and mystical doctrines. He then settled in Croton. There he
29
THE PYTHAGOREANS
founded a religious, scientific, and philosophical brotherhood' It was a
formal school, in that membership was limited and members learned from
leaders. The ieachings ofthe group were kept secret by the members, though
the secrecy as to mathematics and physics is denied by some historians. The
Pythagoreans were supposed to have mixed in politics ; they allied themselves
w'ith tte aristocratic faction and were driven out by the popular or democratic
party. Pythagoras fled to nearby Metapontum and was murdered there
his
aborrt +Si r.". Hi, followers spread to other Greek centers and continued
teachings.
On1 of the great Greek contributions to the very concePt of mathe-
matics was the conscious recognition and emphasis of the fact that mathe-
matical entities, numbers, and geometrical figures are abstractions' ideas
entertained by the mind and sharply distinguished from physical objects
or
pictures, It is true that even some primitive civilizations and certainly the
'Egyptians
and Babylonians had Iearned to think about numbers as divorced
frlm physical objects. Yet there is some question as to how much they were
geo-
corscLrrsly aware of the abstract nature of such thinking' Moreover'
metricalthinkinginallpre-Greekcivilizationswasdefinitelytiedtomatter.
To the Egyptiu*, fo. e*ample, a line was no more than either a stretched
rope or tfr'" .ag" of a field and a rectangle was the boundary of a field'
The recotnition that mathematics deals with abstractions may with
some confidenie be attributed to the Pythagoreans. However,
this may not
the Pythag-
have been true at the outset of their work. Aristotle declared that
oreans regarded numbers as the ultimate components of real'
material
objects.l lir-b.r, did not have a detached existence apart from objects
of
seise. When the early Pythagoreans said that all objects were composed
of
(whole) numbers or that ,rr-b".t were the essence of the universe' they
meant it literally, because numbers to them were Iike atoms are
to us' It is
also believed that the sixth- and fifth-century Pythagoreans
did not really
then' a number
distinguish numbers from geometrical dots' Geometrically'
Eudemus'
*", u]r, extended poirrt oi a very small sphere' However' (than had as
reforted by Proclus, says that Pythagoras rose to trigher principles

the Egyptians and Babyloniani) a"d considered abstract problems for the
pr.. irr*ttig.rrce. Eudemus adds that Pythagoras was the creator of pure
mathematics, which he made into a liberal art'
The Pythagoreans usually depicted numbers as dots in sand or as pebbles'
-the
They classified numbers according to the shapes made by the arrange-
pebbles. Thus the numbers l, 3, 6, and l0 were called
-"rrt, of the dots orthe corresponding dots could be arranged as triangles
triangular because
(Fig."3.f). The fourth trianlular number, 10, especially fascinated the
iyiilugo..urrs because it wa, a prized number for them, and had 4 dots on
l. Metablas.I, v, 986a and 986a 21, Loeb Classical Library ed'

3o TIIE CREATION OF CLASSICAL GREEK MATHEMATICS
Figure 3,I
Figurc 3.2
each side, 4 being another favorite number. They realized that the sums
l, | + 2, I + 2 + 3, and so forth gave the triangular numbers and that
I + 2 + ... I n : (nl2)(n + t).
The numbers l, 4, 9, 16,.. . were called square numbers because as
dots they could be arranged as squares (Fig. 3.2). Composite (nonprime)
numbers which were not perfect squares were called oblong.
From the geometrical arrangements certain properties of the whole
numbers became evident. Introducing the slash, as in the third illustration
of Figure 3.2, shows that the sum of two consecutive triangular numbers is a
square number. This is true generally, for as we can see, in modern notation,
i@ + r) *+ @ + 2): (z + 1)'.
That the Pythagoreans could prove this general conclusion, however, is

doubtful.
To pass from one square number to the next one, the Pythagoreans had
the scheme shown in Figure 3.3. The dots to the right of and below the lines
in the figure formed what they called a gnomon. Symbolically, what they
saw here was that nz + (2n + l) : (z + I )'a. Further, if we start with I and
Figure 3.3
THE PYIIIAGOREANS 3r
Figure 3.4. The shaded area is the gnomon.
add the gnomon 3 and then the gnomon 5, and so forth, what we have in our
symbolism is
l+3+5+"'+(2n-l):z''
As to the word "gnomon," originally in Babylonia it probably meant
an upright stick whose shadow was used to tell time. In Pythagoras' time it
is the shape of the above grromon' It
-.uot " carpenter's square, and thisa square when a smaller square was cut
also meant what was left over from
out of one corner. Later, with Euclid, it meant what was left from a paral-
lelogram when a smaller one was cut out of one corner provided that the
p".ull"log.urn in the lower right-hand corner was similar to the one cut out
(Fig.
' 3.a).
-The with polygonal numbers such as pen-
Pythagoreans also worked
tagonal, hexagonal, and higher ones. As we can see from Figure 3'5, where
.ulh dot .ap."r"rrtt a unit, the first pentagonal number is l, the second,
whose dots form the vertices ofa pentagon, is 5; the third is I * 4 * 7, or
12, and so forth. The zth pentagonal number, in our notation,is (3nz - n)12'
Liiewise the hexagonal numbers (Fig. 3.6) are l, 6, 15, 28, ' ' ' and generally
2n2 - n,
A number that equaled the sum of its divisors including I but not the
number itself was callet perfect; for example,6,28, and 496' Those e:rceed-
ing the sum of the divisors were called excessive and those which were less
wJre called defective. Two numbers were called amicable if each was the
sum of the divisors of the other, for example, 284 arad 22O'
The Pythagoreans devised a rule for finding triples of integers which
could be the sides of a right triangle. This rule implies knowledge of tlre Py-
thagorean theorem, about which we shall say more later' They found that
whJn n is odd, thert m, (m2 - l) 12, and, (mz + l) 12 arc such a triple' However,
Figure 3.5. Pentagonal numbers

32 THE CREATION OF CI.ASSICAL CREEK MATT{EMATICS
Figure 3,6. Hexagonal Dumbers
this rule gives only some sets of such triples. Any set of three integers which
can be the sides ofa right riangle is now called a Pythagorean triple.
The Pythagoreans studied prime numbers, progressions, and those
ratios and proportions they regarded as beautiful. Thus ifp and q are two
numbers, the arithmetic rnean Ais (p + q)12, the geometric mean Gis \/-pq,
and the harmonic mean 11, which is the reciprocal of the arithmetic mean of
llp and, llq, is 2pql(p * q). Now G is seen to be the geometric mean of
A and, H. The proportion AIG : GIH was called the perfect proportion
and the proportion pt(p + dl2 :z?qlQ I q):q was called the musical
ProPortion.
Numbers to the Pythagoreans meant whole numbers only. A ratio of
two whole numbers was not a fraction and therefore another kind of number,
as it is in modern times. Actual fractions, expressing parts of a monetary unit
or a measure, were employed in commerce, but such commercial uses of
arithmetic were outside the pale of Greek mathematics proper. Hence the
Pythagoreans were startled and disturbed by the discovery that some ratios-
for example, the ratio of the hypotenuse of an isosceles right triangle to an
arm or the ratio of a diagonal to a side of a square-cannot be expressed by
whole numbers. Since the Pythagoreans had concerned themselves with
whole-number triples that could be the sides of a right triangle, it is most
likely that they discovered these new ratios in this work. They called ratios
expressed by whole numbers commensurable ratios, which means that the
two quantities are measured by a common unit, and they called ratios not so
expressible, incommensurable ratios. Thus what we express u" l/i.12 is an
incommensurable ratio. The ratio of incommensurable magnitudes was
called cloyos (alogos, inexpressible). The terr:l, d,ppytos (arratos, not having
a ratio) was also used. The discovery of iricommensurable ratios is attributed
to Hippasus of Metapontum (5th cent. a.c.). The Pythagoreans were suP-
posed to have been at sea at the time and to have thrown Hippasus over-
board for having produced an element in the universe which denied the
Pythagorean doctrine that all phenomena in the universe can be reduced to
whole numbers or their ratios.
Tr{E PYTHACOREANS 33
The proof that y'Z it i.rco-rrr.nsurable with I was given by the Pythag-
orearrr. According to Aristotle, their method was a reductio ad absutdum-
that is, the indirect method' The proof showed that if the hypotenuse were
commensurable with an arm then the same number would be both odd and
even. It runs as follows: Let the ratio of hypotenuse to arm ofan isosceles
right triangle be o:p and let this ratio be expressed in the smallest numbers.
Then o' : Zp' Ay the Pythagorean theorem. Since a2 is even, d must be
even, for the square of any odd number is odd.2 Now the ratio a:p is in its
lowest terms. Hence B must be odd. Since cr is even, let a:2y' Then
o2 : 4y2 : 2F2. lts'ence F' : 2y'and so p2 is even' Then B is even' But is
p
also odd and so there is a contradiction.
This proot which is of course the same as the modern one that /t is
irrational, was included in older editions of Euclid's Elements as Proposition
I l7 of Book X. Elowever, it was most likely not in Euclid's original text and
so is omitted in modern editions'
Incommensurable ratios are expressed in modern mathematics by
irrational numbers. But the Pythagoreans would not accePt such numbers.
The Babylonians did work with such numbers by approximating them,
though tirey probably did not know that their sexagesimal fractional
.pp"o*i-ution. could never be made exact. Nor did the Egyptians recognize
the distinctive nature of irrationals. The Pythagoreans did at least recognize
that incommensurable ratios are entirely different in character from com-
mensurable ones.
This discovery posed a problem that was central in Greek mathematics'
The Pythagoreans had, uP to this point, identified number with geometry'
But ttre existence of incommensurable ratios shattered this identification.
They did not cease to consider all kinds of lengths, areas, and ratios in
geometry, but they restricted the consideration of numerical ratios to com-
t.rrr.utl" ones. The theory of proportions for incommensurable ratios and
all kinds of magnitudes was provided by Eudoxus, whose work we shall
consider shortly.
Some geometrical results are also credited to the Pythagoreans' The
most famous is the Pythagorean theorem itselt a key theorem of Euclidean
geometry. The Pythagoreans are also supposed to have discovered what we
Lu.n theorems about triangles, parallel lines, polygons, circles, spheres,
". regular polyhedra. They knew in particular that the sum of the
and the
angles of alriangle is 180". A limited theory of similar figures and the fact
that a plane can te filled out with equilateral triangles, squares, and regular
hexagons are included among their results'
The Pythagoreans started work on a class of problems known as
2. Any odd whole number can be expressed as 2n * | for some z' Then (2n * l)t :
4n2 + 4n * l, and this is necessarily odd.
34 THE CREATTON OF CLASSICAL GREEK MATTTEMATICS
application of areas. The simplest of these was to construct a polygon equal

in area to a given polygon and similar to another given one. Another was to
construct a specified figure with an area e:<ceeding or falling short of another
by a given area. The most important form of the problem of application of
areas is: Given a line segment, construct on part of it or on the line segment
extended a parallelogram equal to a given rectilinear figure in area and
falling short (in the first case) or exceeding (in the second case) by a paral-
lelogram similar to a given parallelogram. We shall discuss application of
areas when we study Euclid's work.
The most vital contribution of the Greeks to mathematics is the insis-
tence that all mathematical results be established deductively on the basis of
explicit axioms. Hence the quesrion arises as to whether the Pythagoreans
proved their geometric results. No unequivocal answer can be given, but it
is very doubtful that deductive proof on any kind of axiomatic basis, explicit
or implicit, was a requirement in the early or middle period of Pythagorean
mathematics. Proclus does affirm that they proved the angle sum theorem I
this may have been done by the late Pythagoreans. The question of whether
they proved the Pythagorean theorem has been extensively pursued, and the
answer is that they probably did not. It is relatively easy to prove it by using
Iiacts aboutsimilar triangles, but the Pythagoreans did not have a complete
theory of similar figures. The proof given in Proposition 47 of Book I of
Euclid's EhmcnAr (Chap. 4, sec. 4) is a difficult one because it does not use the
theory of similar figures, and this proof was credited by Proclus to Euclid
himself. The most likely conclusion about proof in Pythagorean geometry is
that during most of the life of the school the members affirmed results on the
basis of special cases, much as they did in their arithmetic. However, by the
time ofthe late Pythagoreans, that is, about 400 n.c., the status of proof had
changed because of other developments; so these latter-day members of the
brotherhood may have given legitimate proofs.
6. TIU Eleati.c School

The Pythagorean discovery of incommensurable ratios brought to the fore a
difficulty that preoccupied all the Greeks, namely, the relation of the dis-
crete to the continuous, Whole numbers represent discrete objects, and a
commensurable ratio represents a relation between two collections of dis-
crete objects, or two lengths that have a common unit measure so that each
length is a discrete collection of units. However, lengths in general are not
discrete collections of units; this is why ratios of incommensurable lengths
appear. Lengths, areas, volumes, time, and other quantities are, in other
words, continuous. We would say that line segments, for example, can have
irrational as well as rational lengths in terms of some unit, But the Greeks
had not attained this view.
THE ELEATIC SCEOOL 35
llll
Figure 3,7 A D C B
The problem of the relation of the discrete to the continuous was

brought into the limelight by zeno, who lived in the southern Italian city of
Elea. Born some time between 495 and 480 n'c., Zeno was a philosopher
rather than a mathematician, and like his master Parmenides was said to
have been a Pythagorean originally. He proposed a number of paradoxes, of
which four deal with motion. His purpose in posing these paradoxes is not
clear because not enough of the history of Greek philosophy is known' He
was said to be defending Parmenides, who had argued that motion or change
is impossible. He was also attacking the Pythagoreans, who believed in ex-
tended but indivisible units, the points of geometry. we do not know precisely
what zeno said but must rely upon quotations from Aristotle, who cites Zeno
in order to criticize him, and from Simplicius, who lived in the sixth century
a.o. and based his statements on Aristotle's writings'
The four paradoxes on motion are distinct, but the import of all four
taken together was probably intended to be the significant argument' Two
opposinj views of space and time were held in Zeno's day: one, that sPace
u"i ,i-" are infinitely divisible, in which case motion is continuous and
smooth; and the other, that space and time are made up of indivisible small
intervais (like a movie), in which case motion is a succession of minute
jerls.
Zeno,s arguments are directed against both theories, the first two paradoxes
being against the first theory and the latter two against the second theory.
TheirJ paradox of each pair considers the motion of a single body and the
second considers the relative motion of bodies.
Aristotle in his Plyocs states the first Paradox' called the Dichoto-my, 'ur
follows: ".The first asserts the nonexistence of motion on the ground that that
which is in motion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the
goal." This means that to traverse AB (Fig.3'7), one must first arrive at C;
io arrivi at C one must first arrive at D; and so forth' In other words, on
the assumption that space is infinitely divisible and therefore that a finite
length contains an infinite number of points, it is impossible to cover even a
finite length in a finite time.
ArisLtle, refuting Zeno, says there are two senses in which a thing may
be infinite: in divisibility or in extent. In a finite time one can come into
contact with things infinite in respect to divisibility, for in this sense time is
also infinite; arrd so finite extent of time can suffice to cover a finite length.
"
Zeno's argument has been construed by others to mean that to go a finite
length one must cover an infinite number of points and so must get to the
end of something that has no eud.
The second paradox is called Achilles and the Tortoise' According to
36 TIIE CREATION OF CLASSICAL GREBK MATHEMATICS
.A
B. .B
Figure 3.8 c. .c
Aristotle: "It says that the slowest moving object cannot be overtaken by
the fastest since the pursuer must first arrive at the point from which the
pursued started so that necessarily the slower one is always ahead. The argu-
ment is similar to that of the Dichotomy, but the diflerence is that we are not
dividing in halves the distances which have to be passed over." Aristotle
then says that if the slowly moving object covers a finite distance, it can be
overtaken for the same reason he gives in answering the first paradox.
The next two paradoxes are directed against " cinematographic "
motion. The third paradox, called the Arrow, is given by Aristotle as fol-
lows: "The third paradox he [Zeno] spoke about, is that a moving arrow is
at a standstill. This he concludes from the assumption that time is made up
of instants. If it would not be for this supposition, there would be no such
conclusion." According to Aristotle, Zeno means that at any instant during
its motion the arrow occupies a definite position and so is at rest. Hence it
cannot be in motion. Aristotle says that this paradox fails if we do not grant
indivisible units of time.
The fourth paradox, called the Stadium or the Moving Rows, is put by
Aristotle in these words: "The fourth is the argument about a set of bodies
moving on a race-course and passing another set of bodies equal in number
and moving in the oppoSite direction, the one starting from the end, the other
from the middle and both moving at equal speed; he [Zeno] concluded that
it follows that half the time is equal to double the time. The mistake is to
assume that two bodies moving at equal speeds take equal times in passing,
the one a body which is in motion, and the other a body of equal size which
is at rest, an assumption which is false."
The probable point of Zeno's fourth paradox can be stated as follows:
Suppose that there are three rows ofsoldiers, A, B, ar,.d, C (Fig. 3.8), and that
in the smallest unit of time -B moves one position to the left, while in that
time C moves one position to the right. Then relative to B, C has moved two
positions. Hence there must have been a smaller unit of time in which C was
one position to the right of .B or else half the unit of time equals the unit of
time.
It is possible that Zeno merely intended to point out that speed is
relative. C's speed relative to.B is not C's speed relative to l. Or he may have
meant there is no absolute space to which to refer speeds. Aristotle says that
Zeno's lallacy consists in supposing that things that move with the same
speed past a moving object and past a fixed object take the same time.
Neither Zeno's argument nor Aristotle's answer is clear. But if we think of
TIIE SOPHIST SCIIOOL 3t
Figure 3,9
this paradox as attacking indivisible smaliest intervals of time and indivisible

smallest segments of space, which Zeno was attacking, then his argument
makes sense.
We may include with the Eleatics Democritus (c' 460-c' 370 n'c') of
Abdera i.t Thrace. He is reputed to have been a man of great wisdom who
worked in many fields, including astronomy. Since Democritus belonged to
the school of Leucippus and the latter was a pupil of Zeno, many of the
mathematical questions Democritus considered must have been suggested by
Zeno's ideas. He wrote works on geometry, on number, and on continuous
lines and solids. The works on geometry could very well have been significant
predecessors of Euclid's Elements.
Archimedes says Democritus discovered that the volumes of a cone and a
pyramid are 1/3 of the volumes of the cylinder and prism having the same
Lrse ard height, but that the proofs were made by Eudoxus' Democritus re-
garded the cone as a series of thin indivisible layers (Fig' 3'9), but was
iroubted by the fact that if the layers were equal they should yield a cylinder
and ifunequal the cone could not be smooth.
7. The Soplti,st School

After the final defeat of the Persians at Mycale in 479 n.c', Athens became
the major city in a league of Greek cities and a commercial center' Thewealth
acquired through trading, which made Athens the richest city of its time,
was ,-,sed by the famous leader Pericles to build up and adorn the city'
Ionians, Pythagoreans, and intellectuals generally were attracted to Athens'
Here emphasis was given to abstract reasoning and the goal olextending the
domain of reason over the whole of nature and man was set'
The first Athenian school, the Sophist, embraced learned teachers of
grammar, rhetoric' dialectics, eloquence, morals, and-what is of interest to
us-geometry, astronomy, and philosophy' One of their chief pursuits was
the use of mathematics to understand the functioning of the universe'
38 TIIE oREATToN oF cl.AllsrcAl- GREEK MATHEMATToS
Many of the mathematical results obtained were by-products of efforts

to solve the three famous construction problems: to construct a square equal
in area to a given circle; to construct the side of a cube whose volume is
double that of a cube of given edge; and to trisect any angle-all to be
performed with straightedge and compass only.
The origin of these famous construction problems is accounted for in
various ways. For example, one version of the origin of the problem of
doubling the cube, found in a work of Eratosthenes (c.284-192 r.c.), relates
that the Delians, suffering from a pestilence, consulted the oracle, who
advised constructing an altar double the size of the existing one. The
Delians realized that doubling the side would not double the volume and
turned to Plato, who told them that the god ofthe oracle had not so answered
because he wanted or needed a doubled altar, but in order to censure the
Greets for their indifference to mathematics and their lack of respect for
geometry. Plutarch also gives this story.
Actually, these construction problems are extensions of problems already
solved by the Greeks. Since any angle could be bisected, it was natural to
consider trisection. Since the diagonal of a square is the side of a square
double in area to that of the original square, the corresponding problem for
the cube becomes relevant. The problem of squaring the circle is typical of
many Greek problems of constructing a figure of prescribed shape equal in
area to a given figure. Another problem not quite so famous was to construct
regular polygons of seven and more sides. Here, too, the construction of the
square, regular pentagon, and regular hexagon suggested the next step.
Various explanations ofthe restriction to straightedge and compass have
been given. The straight line and the circle were, in the Greek view, the basic
figures, and the straightedge and compass are their physical analogues.
Hence constructions with these tools were preferable. The reason is also
given that Plato objected to other mechanical instruments because they in-
volved too much of the world of the senses rather than the world of ideas,
which he regarded as primary. It is very likely, however, that in the fifth
century the restriction to straightedge and compass was not rigid' But, as we
shall see, constructions played a vital role in Greek geometry and Euclid's
axioms did limit constructions to those made with straightedge and compass.
Hence from his time on, this restriction may have been taken more seriously.
Pappus, for example, says that if a construction can be carried out with
straightedge and compass, a solution using other means is not satisfactory.
The earliest known attempt to solve any of the three famous problems
was made by the Ionian Anaxagoras, who is supposed to have worked on
squaring the circle while in prison. We do not know any more about this
work. One of the most famous attempts is due to Hippias of Elis, a city in the
Peloponnesus. Hippias, a leading Sophist, was born about 460 B.c. and was
a contemporary of Socrates,
39
Figure 3.10
In his attempts to trisect an angle, Hippias invented a new curve,

which, unfortunately, is not itself constructible with straightedge and com-
pass. His curve is called the quadratrix and is generated as follows: I-r-:t AB
(Fig. 3.lO) rotate clockwise about I at a constant speed to the position,4D.
In ttie samc timc let BC move downward parallel to itself at a uniform spced
to lD. Suppose AB reaches AD' as BC reaches B'C'. Let E' be the inter-
section of lD' and. B'C' . Then E' is a typical point on the quadratrix BE'G.
G is the final point on the quadratrix.a
The equation of the quadratrix in terms of rectangular Cartesian co-
ordinates can be obtained as follows: Let AD' reach AD in some fraction {?[
of the total time 7 that AB takes to reach lD. Since AD' ar'd B'C' rnove at
constant speeds, B'C'covers that patt E'H of BA in the same fraction of the
total time, Hence
6 E',H
;ir: fr'
If we denote E'H by y and. BA by a, then
6 !.
(r) 4
"12
3. The point G cannot be obtained dircctly from ttrc dcfinition of thc curvc bccausc '{8
rcaches lD at the samc instant as 8C reaches ,{D and so thcre is no point of intcEcction
of the rotating line and the horizontal line. G can bc obtaincd only as the limit ofprcccding
points of thc quadratrix. By using the calculus wc can show that ,{G : 2olt whcre a = AB'
40 THE CREATION OT CI,ASSICAL GREEK MATIIEMATICS
or
.2
:4'q';'
c
B:ut tf AH : tr, ther
6:
,x arc tan!.
Hence
u:
2au
atc tarL--
u,ttu -
or
y: xtanfr.
,,f,1
The curve, if constructible, could be used to trisect any acute angle. Let
{ be such an angle. Then trisect y so that E'H' : 2H'H. Dtaw B"C'
through fI' and let it cut the quadratrix in L.Draw AL. Then iLAD : $13,
for, by the argument which led to (l),
4LAD H'H
-E-
*LAD _s-l!.
ol2 o
But by (l)
6 v
o12 a
Hence
4LAD:t
Another famous discovery that resulted from the work on the construc-
tion problems was made by Hippocrates of Chios (5th cent. B.c.), the most
famous mathematician of his century, who is to be distinguished from his
contemporary Hippocrates of Cos, the father of Greek medicine. The mathe-
matician Hippocrates flourished in Athens during the second half of the
century; he was not a Sophist, but most likely a Pythagorean. He is credited
with the idea of arranging theorems so that later ones can be proven on the
THE SOPHIST SCHOOL 4t
Figure 3.1 I
basis of earlier ones, in the manner familiar to us from the study of Euclid.
He is also credited with introducing the indirect method of proof into mathe-.
matics. His text on geometry, called the Elements, is lost.
Hippocrates did not, of course, solve the problem ofsquaring the circle,
but he did solve a relatbd one. Let ABC be an isosceles right triangle (Fig.
3.1l) and let it be inscribed in the semicircle with center at O. Let AEB be
the semicircle with AB as diamter. Then
Area semicircle IBC : ACz 2

AG;
'e'"ici;EZEE
VE: r'
Ilence the area OADB equals the area of the semicircle z{EB. Now subtract
the area ADB cornrnon to both. Then the area of the lune (shaded area)
equals the area of triangle AOB. Thus the area of the lune, an area bounded
by arcs, equals the area of a rectilinear figure; or, a curvilinear figure is
reduced to a rectilinear one. This result is called a quadrature I that is, a
curvilinear area has been computed in effect because it is equal to an area
bounded by straight lines and the latter can be computed.
In this proof Hippocrates had to use the fact that the areas of two circles
are to each other as the squares of their diameters. It is doubtful that Hip-
pocrates really had a proof of this fact because the proof depends upon the
method of exhaustion invented later by Eudoxus.
Hippocrates also squared three other lunes. This work on the lunes is
known to us through the writings of Simplicius and is the only sizable frag-
rnent of classical Greek mathematics that v/e have as originally written.
Hippocrates also showed that the problem of doubling the cube can be
reduced to finding two mean proportionals between the given side and one
twice as long. In our algebraic notation, let x and y be such that
2:1
xg
c
2a
Then
xz : a! and, y2 - 2ax.
42 TrrE CREATTON OF CLASSTCAL CREEK MATHEMATICS
Since y : xzlawe obtain from the second equation that

xa : 2as.
This x is the desired answer. It cannot be constructed by straightedge and

compass. Of course Hippocrates must have reasoned geometrically, in a
manner that will be clearer when we examine Apollonius' Conic Sections.
One more very important idea was hit upon by the Sophists Antiphon
(5th cent. r.c.) and Bryson (c.450 r.c.). While trying to square the circle,
Antiphon conceived the idea ofapproaching the area ofa circle by inscribing
polygons of more and more sides. Bryson added to this the idea of using cir-
cumscribed polygons. Antiphon further suggested that the circle be con-
sidercd a polygon of an infinite number of sides. We shall see how these ideas
were taken up by Eudoxus in the method of exhaustion (Chap. 4, sec. 9).
8. Tlu Platonic Sclwol

The Platonic school succeeded the Sophists in the leadership of mathematical
activity. Its forerunners, Theodorus of Cyrene in North Africa (born c. 470
B.c.) and Archytas of Tarentum in southern ltaly (428-347 B.c.), were
Pythagoreans and both taught Plato. Their teachings may have produced
the strong Pythagorean influence in the entire Platonic school.
Theodorus is noted for having proved that the ratios that we represent
as 15, \/8, \/1, . . . , \/11 are incommensurable with a unit. Archytas
introduced the idea ofregarding a curve as generated by a moving point and
a surface as generated by a moving curve. He solved the duplication of the
cube problem by finding two mean proportionals between two given quan-
tities. These mean proportionals were constructed geometrically by finding
tJre intersection ofthree surfaces: a circle rotated about a tangent, a cone, and
a cylinder. The construction is quite detailed and does not warrant space
here. Archytas also wrote on mathematical mechanics, designed machines,
studied sound, and contributed inventions and some theory on musical
scales,
The Platonic school was headed by Plato and included Menaechmus
(4th cent. B.c.), his brother Dinostratus (4th cent. r.c.), and Theaetetus
(c. 415-c.369 a.c.). Many other members are known to us only by name.
Plato (427-347 o.c.) was born of a distinguished family and early in life
had political ambitions. But the fate of Socrates convinced him there was
no place in politics for a man of conscience. He traveled in Egypt and among
the Pythagoreans in lower Italy; the Pythagorean influence may have been
generated by these contacts. About 387 B.c. Plato founded in Athens his
Academy, which in most respects was like a modern university. The Academy
had grounds, buildings, students, and formal courses taught by Plato and his
THE PI.ATOMC SCHOOL 43
aides. During the classical period the study of mathematics and philosophy
was favored there. Though the main center for mathematics shifted to
Alexandria about 300 r.c., the Academy remained preeminent in philosophy
throughout the Alexandrian period. It lasted nine hundred years until it
was ctsed by the Christian emperor Justinian in l.o. 529 because it taught
" pagan and perverse learning."
Plato, one of the most informed men of his day, was not a mathema-
tician; but his enthusiasm for the subject and his belief in its importance for
philosophy and for the understanding of the universe encouraged mathe-
maticians to pursue it. It is noteworthy that almost all of the imPortant
mathematical work of the fourth century was done by the friends and pupils
of Plato. Plato himself seems to have been more concerned to improve and
perfect what was known.
Though we may not be sure to what extent the concepts of mathematics
were treated as abstractions prior to Plato's time, there is no question that
Plato and his successors did so regard them. Plato says that numbers and
geometrical concepts have nothing material in them and are distinct from
physical things. The concepts of mathematics are independent of experience
and have a reality of their own. They are discovered, not invented or
fashioned. This distinction between abstractions and material objects may
have come from Socrates.
A quotation from Plato'sRepublic may serve to illustrate the contem-
porary view of the mathematical concePts. Socrates addresses Glaucon:
And all arithmetic and calculation have to do with numbcr'

Yes....
Then this is knowledge of the kind for which we are seeling, having
a double use, military and philosophical; for the man of war must lcarn
the art of number or he will not tnow how to array his troopo, and the
philosopher also, because he has to rise out of the sea of change and lay
hold of true being, and therefore he must be an arithmetician' ' ' ' Then
this is a kind of knowledge which legislation may fitly prescribe I and wc
must endeavour to persuade those who are to be the principal mcn ofour
State to go and learn arithmetic, not as amateurs, but they must carry
on the study until they sce the nature of numbers with the mind only; nor
again, like merchants or retail-traders, with a vicw to buying or sclling,
but for the sake of their military use, and of the soul herself; and bccause
this will be the easiest way for her to pass from becoming to truth and
being.... I mean, as I was saying, that arithmctic has a very grcat and
elevating effect, compelling the soul to reason about ab'stract number,
and rebelling against the introduction of visible or tangible objects into
the argument.. '.{
4. Book VII, sec. 525; in B. Jowctt, Tlu Dialogucs of Pla!0, Clarcndon Prcss, 1953, Vol' 2'
44 THE CREATION OF CLASSTCAL GnEEK MATHEMATTCS
Another quotations discusses the concepts of geometry. Speaking about

mathematicians, Plato says: '6And do you not know also that although they
further make use of the visible forms and reason about them, they are think-
ing not ofthese, but ofthe ideals which they resemble. . . but they are really
seeking to behold the things themselves, which can be seen only with the eye
of the mind."
It is clear from these quotations that Plato and other Greeks for whom
he speaks valued abstract ideas and preferred mathematical ideas as a
preparation for philosophy. The abstract ideas with which mathematics
deals are akin to others such as goodness and justice, the understanding of
which is the goal of Plato's philosophy. Mathematics is the preparation for
knowledge about the ideal universe.
Why did the Greeks prefer and stress the abstract concepts of mathe-
matics ? We cannot answer the question, but we should note that the early
Greek mathematicians were philosophers and philosophers generally exerted
a formative influence in the development of Greek mathematics. Philosophers
are interested in ideas and typically show their propensity for abstractions in
many domains. Thus the Greek philosophers thought about truth, goodness,
charity, and intelligence. They speculated about the ideal society and the
perfect state. The later Pythagoreans and the Platonists distinguished sharply
between the world of ideas and the world of things. Relationships in the
material world were subject to change and hence did not represent ultimate
truth, but relationships in the ideal world were unchanging and absolute
truths; these were the proper concern of the philosopher.
Plato in particular believed that the perfect ideals ofphysical objects are
the reality. The world of ideals and relationships among them is permanent,
ageless, incorruptible, and universal. The physical world is an imperfect
realization of the ideal world and is subject also to decay. Hence the ideal
world alone is worthy of study. Infallible knowledge can be obtained only
about pure intelligible forms. About the physical world we can have only
opinions; and physical science is sunk in the dregs ofa sensuous world.
We are not sure whether the Platonists contributed the deductive
structure of mathematics. They were concerned with proof and with the
methodology of reasoning. Proclus and Diogenes Laertius (3rd cent. a.o.)
credit the Platonists with two types of methodology. The first is the method
of analysis, where what is to be established is regarded as known and the
consequences deduced until a known truth or a contradiction is reached. If
a contradiction is reached then the desired conclusion is false. If a known
truth is reached then the steps are reversed, ifpossible, and the proofis made.
The second is the method of reductio ad absmdum or the indirect method. The
first method was probably not new with Plato, but perhaps he emphasized
5. Ralublic, Book VI, sec, 510,

TIIE PLATONIC SCIIOOL 45
the necessity for the subsequent synthesis. The indirect method, as already
noted, is also attributed to Hippocrates.
The status of deductive structure with Plato is best indicated by a
passage in The RePublic.6 He saYs
You are aware that students of geometry, arithmetic and thc kindred
sciencesassumetheoddandtheevenandthefiguresandthreekindsof
anglesandthelikeintheirseveralbranchesofsciencelthesearetheir
hypotheses, which they and everybody are supposed to know, and there-
fore they do not deign to give any account of them either to themselves
or others; but they begin with them, and go on until they arrive at last'
and in a consistent manner, at their conclusion'
If this passage is indeed descriptive of the mathematics of the time, then
proof, *.r. c-ertainly made, but the axiomatic basis was implicit or may have
varied somewhat from one mathematician to another'
Platodidaffirmthedesirabilityofadeductiveorganizationofknowl-
edge.Thetaskofsciencewastodiscoverthestructureof(ideal)natureand
to lire it an articulation in a deductive system' Plato was the first to systema-
tizf the rules of rigorous demonstration, and his followers are supposed to
have arranged thirems in logical order' Also, we know that in Plato's
Academy tlie question arose whether a given problem can be solved at all on
the basis of the known truths and the hypotheses given in the problem'
Whether or not mathematics was actually deductively organized on the
basis of explicit axioms by the Platonists, there is no question that deductive
proof fro; some accepted principles was required from at least Plato's time
or*.rd. By insisting on this form of proof the Greeks were discarding all
,ules, procedrr"r, urrd fu"t, that had been accepted in the body of mathe-
matics for thousands of years preceding the Greek period'
Why did the Greeks insist on deductive proof? Since induction' obser-
vation, and experimentation were and still are vital sources of knowledge
heavily and advantageously employed by the sciences, why did the Greeks
prefer in mathematics deductive reasoning to the exclusion of all other
methods ? We know that the Greeks, the philosophical geometers
as they
were called, liked reasoning and speculation, as evidenced by their great
contributions to philosophy, logic, and theoretical science' Moreover'
philosophers are interested in obtaining truths' Whereas induction' experi-
rn"r,u,iorr, and generalizations based on experience yield only probable
knowledge, deduction gives absolutely certain results if the premises are
correct. ivlathematics in the classical Greek world was Part of the body
of
truths philosophers sought and accordingly had to be deductive'
Still another reason for the Greek preference for deduction may be
foundinthecontemPtshownbytheeducatedclassoftheclassicalGreek
6. Book VI, sec. 510.
4S rr{E CREATToN oF cLAssrcAL GREEK MATHEMATTCS
period toward practical affairs. Though Athens was a commercial center,

business as well as such professions as medicine were carried on by the slave
class. Plato contended that the engagement of freemen in trade should be
punished as a crime, and Aristotle said that in the perfect state no citizen (as
opposed to slaves) should practice any mechanical art. To thinkers in such a
society, experimentation and observation would be alien. Hence no results,
scientific or mathematical, would be derived from such sources.
There is, incidentally, evidence that in the sixth and fifth centuries g.c.
the Greek attitude toward work, trade, and technical skills had been quite
different and that mathematics had been applied to the practical arts.
Thales used his mathematics to improve navigation. Solon, a ruler of the
sixth century, invested the crafts with honor and inventors were esteemed.
Sophin, the Greek word usually taken to mean wisdom and abstract thought,
at that time meant technical skill. It was the Pythagoreans, Proclus says, who
" transformed mathematics into a free education," that is, an education for
free men rather than a skill for slaves.
Plutarch in his life of Marcellus substantiates the change in attitude
toward such devices as mechanical instruments:
Eudoxus and Archytas had been the first originators of this far-
famed and highly-prized art of mechanics, which they employed as an
elegant illustration of geometrical truths, and as means of sustaining
experimentally, to the satisfaction of the senses, conclusions too intricate
for proof by words and diagrams. As, for example, to solve the problem,
so often required in constructing geometrical figures, given the two ex-
trcmcs, to find the two mean lines of a proportion, both of these mathe-
maticians had recourse to the aid of instrumene, adapting to their purpose
certain curves and sections oflines. But what \ /ith Plato's indignation at it,
and his invectives against it as the mere corruption and annihilation ofthe
one good of geometry, which was thus shamefully turning its back upon
thc unembodied objects of pure intelligence to recur to sensation, and to
ask help (not to be obtained without base supervisions and deprivation)
from matter, so it was that mechanics came to be separated from geom-
etry, and, repudiated and neglected by philosophers, took its place as a
military art.
This accounts for the poor development of experimental science and the
science of mechanics in the classical Greek period.
Whether or not historical research has isolated the relevant factors to
explain the Greek preference for deductive reasoning, we do know that they
were the first to insist on deductive reasoning as the sole method of proof in
mathematics. This requirement has been characteristic of mathematics ever
since and has distinguished mathematics from all other fields of knowledge
or investigation. However, we have yet to see to what extent later mathema-
ticians remained true to this principle.
TIIE PLATOMC SCHOOL
Figure 3,12
As far as the content of mathematics is concerned, Plato and his school

improved the definitions and are also supposed to have proved new theorems
of pl.ne geometry. Further, they gave imPetus to solid geometry' In Book
VIi, section 528 of Tht Rcpublic, Plato says that before one can consider
astronomy, which treats solids in motion, one needs a science of such solids'
But this rti"rr"", he says, has been neglected. IIe complains that the investi-
gators ofsolid figures have not received due support from the state' Plato and
ilis associates proceeded to study solid geometry and are supposed to have
proved new tieorems. They studied the properties of the prism, pyramid,
cylinder, and cone; and they knew that there can be at most five regular
polyhedra. The Pythagoreans undoubtedly knew that one can form t5ree of
ihese solids with 4; B, a;d 20 equilateral triangles, the cube with squares, and
the dodecahedron with 12 pentagons, but the proof that tlcre can be no
more than flve is probably due to Theaetetus'
The Platonic school,s most significant discovery was the conic sections.
The discovery is attributed by the Alexandrian Eratosthenes to Menaech-
. g"o*.i"r and astronomer, who was a pupil of Eudoxus but a member
^rrr,
of piatJ's Academy. While it is not known for certain what led to the dis.
covery of the conic sections, a common belief is that it resulted from thc
work on the famous construction problems. We know that Hippocrates of
Chios solved the problem of doubling the cube by finding an * and y such
that
aix:xig:y:2a.
But these equations saY that
x2 - d!, Y2 :2ax, arrd xg : laz'
Hence we can see through coordinate geometry that x and y are the coordi-
nates of the point of intersection of two parabolas or a parabola and a
hyperbola. I\ier"e"h-rrs worked on the problem and saw both wap of
,oi.,oi"g it through pure geometry. According to the matlematical historian
Otto freugebaue. if eSS- ), the conic sections might have originated in work
on the construction of sundials.
Menaechmus introduced the conic sections by using three types of
cones (Fig. 3.I2), right-angled, acute-angled, and obtuse-angled, and cutting
48 TTTE CREATION OF CI.AS{iICAL GREEK MATTIEMATICS
each by a plane perpendicular to an element. Only one branch of the

hypirbola was recognized at this time.
Among other mathematical studies made by the Platonists was Theae-
tetus' work on incommensurables. Previously Theodorus of Cyrene had
proved that (in our notation and languagQ 15, {5, ll, and, other square
roots are irrational. Theaetetus investigated other and higher types of ir-
rationals and classified them. We shall note these types when we study Book
X of Euclid's Elements. In this work of Theaetetus we see how the number
system was being extended to more irrationals, but only those incommen-
surable ratios were studied which arose from geometrical thinking and could
be constructed geometrically as lengths. Dinostratus, another Platonist,
showed how to use the quadratrix of Hippias to square the circle. Aristaeus
the Elder (c. 320 a.c.) is said by Pappus to have written a work in five books
called Elanrnts of Conic Sutions.
9. Tlu School of Eudoxus

The greatest of the classical Greek mathematicians and second only to
Archimedes in all antiquity was Eudoxus. Eratosthenes called him .,god-
like." He was born in Cnidos in Asia Minor about 408 a.c., studied under
Archytas in Tarentum, traveled in Egypt, where he learned some astronomy,
and then founded a school at Cyzicus in northern Asia Minor. About 368
s.c. he and his followers joined Plato. Some years later he returned to Cnidos
and died there about 355 s.c. An astronomer, physician, geometer, legislator,
and geographer, he is most noted for the creation of the first astronomical
theory of the heavenly motions (Chap. 7).
His first great contribution to mathematics was a new theory of propor-
tion. The discovery of more and more irrationals (incommensurable ratios)
made it necessary for the Greeks to face these numbers. Were they in fact
numbers ? They occurred in geometrical arguments, whereas the whole
numbers and ratios of whole numbers occurred both in geometry and in the
general study of quantity. Moreover, how could proofs of geometry which
had been made for commensurable lengths, areas, and volumes be extended
to incommensurable ones ?
Eudoxus introduced the notion ofa magnitude (Chap. 4, sec. 5). It was
not a number but stood for entities such as line segments, angles, areas,
volumes, and time which could vary, as we would say, continuously. Magni-
tudes were opposed to numbers, which jumped from one value to another,
as from 4 to 5. No quantitative values were assigned to magnitudes. Eudoxus
then defined a ratio of magnitudes and a proportion, that is, an equality of
two ratios, to cover commensurable and incommensurable ratios. However,
again, no numbers were used to express such ratios. The concepts ofratio and
TIIE SCHOOL OF ET.IDOXUS 49
proportion were tied to geometry' as we shall see when we study Book V

of Euclid.
What Eudoxus accomplished was to avoid irrational numbers as num-
bers.In effect, he avoided giving numerical values to Iengths of line segments,
sizesof angles, and other magnitudes, and to ratios of magnitudes' While
Eudoxus, theory enabled the Greek mathematicians to make tremendous
progress in geometry by supplying the necessary logical foundation for in-
commensurable ratios, it had several unfortunate consequences'
For one thing, it forced a sharp seParation between number and geometry'
for only geometry could handle incommensurable ratios. It also drove mathe-
matician-s into the ranks of the geometers, and geometry became the basis for
almost all rigorous mathematics for the next two thousand years. we still speak
of x' as r square and rs as .r cube instead of x second or * third, say, because
the magnitudes x2 and xo had only geometric meaning to the Greeks'
The Eudoxian solution to the problem of treating incommensurable
lengths or the irrational number actually reversed the emphasis of previous
GrJek mathematics. The early Pythagoreatrs had certainly emphasized
number as the fundamental concept, and Archytas of Tarentum, Eudoxus'
teacher, stated that arithmetic alone, not geometry, could supply satisfactory
proofs. However, in turning to geometry to handle irrational numbers, the
classical Greeks abandoned algebra and irrational numbers as such' What
did they do about solving quadratic equations, where the solutions can
indeed te irrational numbers ? And what did they do about the simple
problem offinding the area ofa rectangle whose sides are incommensurable ?
th" urr*.. is that they converted most of algebra to geometry, in a manner-
we shall examine in the next chapter. The geometric representation of
irrationals and of operations with irrationals was, of course, not practical' It
might be logically satisfactory to think of {2'13 as an area of a rectangle,
brt if one needed to know the product in order to buy floor covering, he
would not have it.
Greeks devoted their deepest efforts in mathematics to
Though-*" the
must keep in mind that whole numbers and ratios of whole
g"o-"t.y,
,rlr-b.., were still accePtable concePts. This area of mathematics, as we
shall see, was built up diductively in Books VII, VIII, and IX of Euclid's
Elements. The material is essentially what we call the theory of numbers
or
the properties of integers.
Thequestionalsoarises:WhatdidtheclassicalGreeksdoaboutthe
need for irumbers in scientific work and in commerce and other practical
affairs? Classical Greek science, as we shall see, was qualitative' As for the
practical uses of numbers, we mentioned earlier that the intellectuals of that
period confined themselves to philosophical and scientific activities and took
no hand in commerce or the trades; educated people did not concern them-
selves with practical problems. But one could think about all rectangles
in
50 TIIE CREATION OF CI.ASSICAL GREEK MATHEMATICS
geometry without concerning himself in the Ieast with the actual dimensions
of even one rectangle. Mathematical thought was thus separated from prac-
tical needs, and there was no compulsion for the mathematicians to improve
arithmetical and algebraic techniques. When the barrier between the cul-
tured and slave classes was breached in the Alexandrian period (300 a.c. to
about A.D. 600) and educated men interested themselves in practical affairs,
the emphasis shifted to quantitative knowledge and the development of
arithmetic and algebra.
To return to the contributions of Eudoxus, the powerful Greek method
of establishing the areas and volumes of curved figures, now called the
method of exhaustion, is also due to him. We shall examine the method and
its use, as given by Euclid, later. It is really the first step in the calculus but
does not use an explicit theory of limits. With it Eudoxus proved, for example,
that the areas of two circles are to each other as the squares of their radii, the
volumes of two spheres are to each other as the cubes of their radii, the
volume of a pyramid is one-third the volume of a prism of the same base and
altitude, and the volume ofa cone is one-third the volume ofthe correspond-
ing cylinder.
Some authority can be found to credit every school from Thales'
onward with having introduced the deductive organization of mathematics.
There is no question, however, that the work of Eudoxus established the
deductive organization ot tlu basis of cxplicit axioms. The necessity for under-
standing and operating with incommensurable ratios is undoubtedly the
reason for this step. Since Eudoxus undertook to provide the precise logical
basis for these ratios, he most likely saw the need to formulate aioms and
deduce consequences one by one so that no mistakes would be made with
these unfamiliar and troublesome magnitudes. This need to work with in-
commensurable ratios also undoubtedly reinforced the earlier decision to
rely only on deductive reasoning for proof.
Because the Greeks sought truths and had decided on deductive proot
they had to obtain axioms that were themselves truths. They did find itate-
ments whose ruth was self-evident to them, though the justifications given
for accepting the axioms as indisputable truths varied. Almost all Gieeks
believed that the mind was capable of recognizing truths. plato applied his
theory of anamnesis, that we have had direct experience of truths in a
period of existence as souls in another world before coming to earth, and we
have but to recall this experience to know that these truths included the
axioms of geometry. No experience on earth is necessary. Some historians
read into statements by Plato and proclus the idea that there can be some
arbitrariness in the axioms, provided only tlat they are clear and true in the
mind of the individual. The important thing is to reason deductively on the
basis of the ones chosen. Aristotle had a good deal to say about axioms and
we shall note his views in a moment.
ARIII{)TLE AND HIS SCEOOL 5I
10. Aristotle and His School

Aristotle (384-322 n.c.) was born in stageira, acityin Macedonia. For tlventy
years he was a pupil and colleague of Plato, and for three years, from 343 to
140 r."., he was the tutor of Alexander the Great. In 335 n'c' he founded his
own school, the Lyceum' It had a garden, a lecture room, and an altar to the
Muses.
Aristotle wrote on mechanics, physics, mathematics, logic, meteorology,
botany, psychology, zoology, ethics, literature, metaPhysics, economics, and-
mathematics but discussions of
-.rry'oih"" fields. There is no one book on he uses it to illustrate a number
the subject occur in a variety of places, and
of points.
He viewed the sciences as falling into three types-theoretical, produc-
tive, and practical. The theoretical ones, which seek truth, are mathematics,
physics (optics, harmonics, and astronomy), and metaphysics; of thlc
mathematics is the most exact. The productive sciences are the arts; and the
practical ones, for example ethics and politics, seek to regulate human
actions. In the theoretical sciences, Iogic is preliminary to the several subjects
included there, and the metaphysician discusses and errplains what thc
mathematician and natural philosopher (scientist) take for granted, for
example, the being or reality ofthe subject matter and the nature of axioms'
ihough Aristotle did not contribute significant new mathematical
results (a f"* th.or"-t in Euclid are his), his views on the nature of mathe-
matics and its relation to the physical world were highly influential. whercas
plato believed that there was an independent, eternally oristing world of
ideas which constituted the reality of the universe and that mathematical
concepts were part of this world, Aristotle frvored concrete matter or sub-
stanc;. However, he too arriv ed at an cmphasis on ideas, namely, the universal
essences of physical objects, such as hardness, softness, heaviness, lightness,
sphericity, coldness, and warmth. Numbers and geometrical forms, too, werc
p"operti.r of real objects; they were recognized by abstraction but belonged
io the obje"*. Thus mathematics deals with abs6act concepts, which are
derived from properties of physical bodies.
Aristbtle dit"t rt", definition. His notion of definition is modern; he
calls it a name for a collection of words. He also Points out that definition
must be in terms of something prior to the thing defined. Thus he criticizes the
definition, "a point is that which has no part," because the words "tlat
which" do roi say what they refer to, except possibly "point" and so the
definition is not proper. He grants the need for undefined terms, since there
must be a starting point for the series of definitions, but later mathematicians
lost sight of this need until the end of the nineteenth century'
fre aho notes (as Plato' according to Plutarch, did earlier) that a defini-
tion tells us what a thing is but not that the thing enists. The existencc of
52 THE OREATTON OF CLASSICAL GREEK MATI{EMATTCS
defined things has to be proved except in the case of a few primary things
such as point and line, whose existence is assumed along with the first
principles or axioms. Thus one can define a square, but such a figure may
not exist; that is, the properties demanded in the definition may be incom-
patible. Leibniz gave the example ofa regular polyhedron with ten faces;
one can define such a figure but it does not exist. If one did not realize that
this figure did not exist, and proceeded to prove theorems about it, his results
would be nonsensical. The method of proving existence that Aristotle and
Euclid adopted was construction. The first three axioms in Euclid's Elements
grant the construction of straight Iines and circles; all other mathematical
concepts must be constructed to establish their existence. Thus angle tri-
sectors, though definable, are not constructible with straight lines and circles
and so could not be considered in Greek geometry.
Aristotle also treats the basic principles of mathematics. He distin-
guishes between the axioms or common notions, which are truths common to
all sciences, and the postulates, which are acceptable first principles for any
one science. Among axioms he includes logical principles, such as the law of
contradiction, the law ofexcluded middle, the axiom that if equals are added
or subtracted from equals the results are equal, and other such principles.
The postulates need not be self-evident but their truth must then be attested
to by the consequences derived from them. The collection of axioms and
postulates should be of the fewest possible, provided they enable all the
results to be proved. Though, as we shall see, Euclid uses Aristotle's distinc-
tion between common notions and postulates, all mathematicians up to the
late nineteenth century overlooked this distinction and treated axioms and
postulates as equally self-evident. According to Aristotle, the axioms are
obtained from the observation of physical objects. They are immediately
apprehended generalizations. He and his followers gave many definitions
and axioms or improved earlier ones. Some of the Aristotelian versions were
taLen up by Euclid.
Aristotle discusses the fundamental problem of how points and lines can
be related. A point, he says, is indivisible and has position. But then no
accumulation of points, however far it may be carried, can give us anything
divisible, whereas of course a line is a divisible magnitude. Hence points
cannot make up anything continuous like a line, for point cannot be con-
tinuous with point. A point, he says, is like the now in timel now is indi-
visible and not a part of time. A point may be an extremity, beginning, or
divider of a line but is not a part of it or of magnitude. It is only by rzo tion that
a point can generate a line and thus be the origin of magnitude. He also
argues that a point has no length and so ifa line were composed ofpoints, it
would have no length. Similarly, if time were composed of instants there
would be no interval of time. His definition of continuity, which a line pos-
sesses, is : A thing is continuous when the limits at which any two successive
ARISTOTLE AND HIS SCHOOL 53
parts touch are one and the same and are, as the word continuous imPlies'
ireld together. Actually Aristotle makes many statements about continuous
mug.ritide, which are not in agreement with each other' The substance of
hisioctrine, nevertheless, is that points and numbers are discrete quantities
and must be distinguished from the continuous magnitudes of geometry'
There is no continuum in arithmetic. As to the relation of the two
fields, he
is, the theory of numbers-more accurate' be'
considers arithmetic-that
cause numbers lend themselves to abstraction more readily than
the geo-
metric concepts. He also considers arithmetic to be prior to geometry because
the number three is needed to consider a triangle'
In discussing infinity he makes a distinction, which is imPortant today'
age of the
between the pof,ntially infinite and the actually infinite' The
infinite but is never at any
earth, if it hai a sudden beginning, is potentially
time actually infinite. According to Aristotle, only the potentially infinite
exists. The positive integers, he grants, are potentially
infinite in that we can
at*ay, aaa't to any nulber ani get a new one,- but the infinite set as such
does not exist. Further, most magnitudes cannot be even potentially infinite'
because if they were continually added to they could exceed the bounds of
the universe. Sp."e, ho*el,er, is potentially infinite, in that it can be re-
peatedly subdivided, and time is potentially infinite in both ways'
' A major achievement of Aristotle was the founding of the science of
had
logic. In producing correct laws of mathematical reasoning the Greeks
l"id th. giorrnd*ork for logic, but it took Aristotle-to codify and systematize
these laws into a separate Jiscipline' Aristotle's writings
make it abundantly
from mathematics' His basic principles of logic-
clear that he derived logic
be both true
the law of contradiction, which asserts that a proposition cannot
arrd false, and the law of excluded middle, which maintains that a proposi-
tionmustbeeithertrueorfalse-aretheheartoftheindirectmethodof
mathematical proof. Further, Aristotle used mathematical examples taken
from contemporary texts to illustrate his principles of reasoning'
Aristotelian
logic remainid unchallenged until the nineteenth century'
Though the science of logic was derived from mathematics' logic even-
tually came to be considered independent of and prior to mathematics and
logic
applicable to all reasoning. Even Aristotle, as already noted' regarded
a, p.elimirrary to sciencJand philosophy' In mathematics he emphasized
d.iuctir. proof as the sole basis for establishing facts' For Plato' who be-
lieved thai mathematical truths preexist or exist in a world independent
of
of theorems; the
man, reasoning was not the guarantee of the correctness
iog*r po*".. ilayed only a s""ot'daty role' They made explicit' so to speak'
what was alreadY known to be true'
One member of Aristotle's school especially worthy of note is Eudemus
g'c' and was the
of Rhodes, who lived in the last Part of the fourth century
by Proclus and Simplicius' As we
author of the Eudemian summary quoted
54 THE CREATTON OF CLASSICAL GREEK MATTiEMATTCS
noted earlier, Eudemus wrote histories of arithmetic, geometry, and as-

tronomy. He is the fust historian of science on record. But what is more sig-
nificant is that the knowledge already existing in his time should have been
sufficiently extensive to warrant histories.
The last of the men of the classical period we shall mention here is
Autolycus of Pitane, an astronomer and geometer, who flourished about
310 s.c. He was not a member of Plato's or Aristotle,s schools, though he did
teach one of the leaders who succeeded Plato. Of three bools he wrote, two
have come down to us; they are the earliest Greek books we have intact,
though only through manuscripts that presumably are copies of Autolycus'
work. These booLs, Oz tlu Moaing Splurc and On Risings and Settings, were
eventually included in a collection called t};,e Littlc Astronozy (as distinguished
from Ptolemy's later C,reat Colhction, or the Almagest). On ttu Moving Splure
treats meridian circles, great circles generally, and what we would call
parallels of latitude, as well as the visible and invisible areas produced by a
distant light source shining on a rotating sphere, as the sun does on the earth.
The book presupposes theorems of spherical geometry which must, there-
fore, have been known to the Greeks of that time. Autolycus' second book,
on the rising and setting of stars, belongs to observational astronomy.
The form of the book on moving spheres is significant. Letters denote
points on diagrams. The propositions are logically ordered. Each proposition
is first stated generally, then repeated, but with explicit reference to the
figure; finalln the proof is given. This is the style Euclid uses.
Bibliograplry
Apostle, H, G.: Aristoth's Phihsoplry of Matlumatics, University of Chicago press,
1952.
BaII, W. W. Rouse: A Short Account of thc History of Matlumatits, Dover (reprint),
1960, Chaps. 2-3.
Boyer, Carl B.: A Histary of Mathcmatics, John Wiley and Sons, 1968, Chaps. 4-6.
Brumbaugh, Robert S.: Plato's Matlumatbal Imagination, Indiana University press,
1954.
Gomperz, Theodor: Greck Thin*as, 4 vols., John Murray, 1920.
Guthrie, W. K. C. : A History oJ Gruk Philosoplry, Cambridge University press, 1962
and 1965, Vols. I and 2.
Hamilton, Edith : Thc Greck Way to Westcrn Ciailizatiez, New American Library, 194g.
Heath, Thomas L.: A History of Grcek Mathemalics, Oxford University press, 1921,
Vol. 1
A Manual of Greck Mathematics, Dover (reprint), 1963, Chaps. rl--9.

Mathcmatits in Aristoth, Odord University press, 1949,
Jaeger, Werner t Pailleia,3 vols., Oxford Univenity press, 1939-44.
Lasserre, Frangois: The Birth of Malhematbs in the Agc of plato, Ametican Research
Council, 1964.
BIBIIOGRAPITY 55
Mrzizr:., Edward A., and Thomas Greenwood r Greck Matfumatital Philosoplry,

F. Ungcr, 1968.
Sarton, Georte: A History of Scictttc, Harvard University Press, 1952, Vol'
I' Chaps'
7, ll, 16, 17, and 20.
Scott, J. F.: ,rl Hisary of Matlunzlrs, Taylor and Francis, 1958, Chap' 2'
Smithl David Eugene: History of Mathcmatits, Dover (reprint), 1958' Vol'
1'
Chap. 3.
van der Waerden, B. L.: Scilncc Au&ning, P' Noordhoff, 1954, Chaps' 44'
Wedberg, Anders: Ptato's Phihsoptry of Matlumaties, Almqvist and Wiksell'
1955'
+
Euclid and Apollonius
We have learned from the very pioneers of this science not to

have any regard to mere plausible imaginings when it is a
quetiotr of the reasoniags to be included in our geometrical
doctrine. PROCLUS
l. Introdtution
The cream of the mathematical work created by the men of the classical
period has fortunately come down to us in the writings of two men, Euclid
and Apollonius. Chronologically, both belong to the second great period of
Greek history, the Hellenistic or Alexandrian. It is quite certain that Euclid
lived in Alexandria about 300 s.c. and trained students there, though his
own education was probably acquired in Plato's Academy. This informa-
tion, incidentally, is about all we have on Euclid's personal life and even this
'
iomes from a one-paragraph passage in Proclus' Commentarg. Apollonius died
in 190 r.c., so his life too falls within the Alexandrian period. It is customary,
however, to identify Euclid's work with the classical period, because his
bools are accounts of what was developed in that age. Euclid's work is
actually an organization of the separate discoveries of the classical Greeks;
this is clear from a comparison of its contents with what is known of the
earlier work. The Elements in particular is as much a mathematical history
ofthe agejust brought to a close as it is the logical development ofa subject.
Apollonius'work is generally classed with that of the Alexandrian period but
the content and spirit of his major work, Conic Sections, is of the classical
period. In fact Apollonius acknowledged that the first four of the work's
eight books were a revision of Euclid's lost work on the same subject. Pappus
mentions that Apollonius spent a long time with the pupils of Euclid at
Alexandria, which readily explains the kinship with Euclid. The justification
for identifying Apollonius with the work of the classical period will be more
apparent when we have learned the characteristics of the work of the
Alexandrian period.
56
ttELEMENrs" 5t
TIIE BAcKcRouND oF EUoLID'S
2. The Background of Euclid's Elements

Euclid,s most famous work is the ELements. The major sources of the material
in this work can generally be identified despite our slim knowledge of the
classical period. Euclid undoubtedly owes much of his material
to the
Platonists with whom he studied. Moreover, Proclus says that Euclid put
into his Elements many of Eudoxus' theorems, perfected theorems of Theae-
tetus, and made irrelragable demonstrations of results loosely proved by his
predecessors.
The particular choice of axioms, the arrangement of the theorems' and
.oln" p.oof. are his, as are the polish and the rigor of the demonstrations.
The flrm of presentation of proof has, however, already been noted in
Autolycus and was pretty surely used by others who preceded Euclid'
Despiie all he may have taken from earlier texts and other sources, Euclid
was unquestionabiy a great mathematician' His other writings suPPort this
judgment despite any question as to how much ol the Elements is original with
"B"iia. proclus
makes it clear that the Elements was highly valued in Greece
and refers by way of substantiation to the numerous commentaries on it'
Among the most important must have been those by Heron (c' 100 r'c'-
c. e.o. 100), Porphyry (3rd cent. e.o.), and Pappus (end of3rd cent'
e'o')'
Presumab( Er"iidi, book was so good that it superseded the ones supPosed
tohavebeenwrittenbyHippocratesofChiosandbythePlatonistsLeonand
Theudius.
TherearenoextantmanuscriptswrittenbyEuclidhimself.Hencehis
writings have had to be reconstructed from numerous recensions, commen-
taries, and remarks by other writers. All of the English and Latin editions of
Euclid's Elements stem originally from Greek manuscriPts' These were Theon
of Alexandria,s recension of Euclid's Elcments (end of the 4th cent. il..o.),
copies of Theon's recension, written versions of lectures by Theon, and one
Greek ma.,uscript found by Frangois Peyrard (1760_1822) in the Vatican
Library. This tenth-century manuscript is a copy ofan edition of Euclid that
p.."ed.. Theon's. Hence the historians J' L' Heiberg and Thomas L' Heath
iru*," this manuscript for their study of Euclid, comparing it
,."d principally
of course with the other available manuscripts and commentaries. There are
also Arabic translations of Greek works and Arabic commentaries, pre-
sumably based on Greek manuscripts no longer available' These' too' have
been us.d to decide what was in Euclid,s Elements, But the Arabic transla-
tions and revisions are on the whole inferior to the Greek manuscripts' Of
some
course, the reconstruction, since it is based on so many sources, leaves
matters in doubt. The purpose of Euclid's Elements is in question' It is con-
sidered by some as a treatise for learned mathematicians and by others as a
text for siudents. Proclus gives some weight to the latter belief'
In view of the length and incomparable historical importance of this
58
work, we shall devote several sections of this chapter to a review of and
comment on the contents. Since we still learn Euclidean geometry, we may
be somewhat surprised by the contents of the Elemmts. The high school
versions most widely used during our century are patterned on Legendre's
modification of Euclid's work. Some algebra used by Legendre is not in the
Elcmmts, though, as we shall see, the equivalent geometrical material is.
3. The Definitions and Axioms of the Elemenla

The Elemcnts contains thirteen books. Two others, surely by later writers,
were included in some editions. Book I begins with the definitions of the
concepts to be used in the first part of the work. We shall note only the most
important ones; these are numbered as in Heath's edition.l
l. A point is that which has no part.

2. A line is breadthless length.
The word linc means curve.
3. The extremities of a line are points.
This definition makes clear that a line or curve is always finite in length.
A curve extending to infinity does not occur in the Elements.
4. A straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.
In keeping with definition 3, the straight line of Euclid is our line segment.
The definition is believed to be suggested by the mason's level or an eye
looking along a line.
5. A surface is that which has length and breadth only.
6. The extremities of a surface are lines.
Hence a surface, too, is a bounded figure.
7. A plane surface is a surface which lies evenly with the straight lines on
itself.
15. A circle is a plane figure contained by one line such that all the straight
lines falling upon it from one point among those lying within the figure are
equal to one another,
16. And the point is called the center of the circle.
17. A diameter of the circle is any straight line drawn through the center and
terminated in both directions by the circumference [not defined explicitly]
ofthe circle, and such a sraight line also bisects the circle.
l. T. L. Heath: Tlu Thirteen Books of Erclid's E)ements, Dover (reprint), 1956,3 vols.
THE DEFINITIONS AND AXIOMS OF THE..ELEMBNIS,, 59
23. Parallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane
and being p.odrrced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another
in either direction.
Theopeningdefinitionsareframedintermsofconceptsthatarenot
defined, urrd h.rr.. serve no logical purpose. Euclid might not have realized
that the initial concepts must be undefined and was naively explaining their
meaning in terms ofphysical concepts. Some commentators say he appre-
ciated that the definitions were not logically helpful but wanted to explain
what his terms rePresented intuitively so that his readers would be convinced
that the axioms and Postulates were applicable to these concePts'
Euclid next lays down five postulates and five common notions (Proclus
uses the term "axiom" for " common notion")' He adopts
the distinction
already made by Aristotle, namely, that the common notions are truths
applicable to all sciences whereas the Postulates apply only to geometry' As
*" h.r" noted, Aristotle said that the postulates need not be known to be
true but that their truth would be tested by whether the results deduced
from them agreed with reality. Proclus even speaks of all of mathematics
as hypothetiJal ; that is, it merely deduces what must follow from the
urr,r-p,iorrr, whether or not the latier are true' Presumably Euclid accepted
Aristotle's views concerning the truth of the postulates' However' in the
subsequent history of mathematics, both the Postulates and the cotnmon
notions were accepted as unquestionable truths, at least until the advent
of
non-Euclidean geometry.
Euclid postulates the following:
POSTULATES
l. [It is possible] to draw a straight line from any point to any point'
2. [It is possible] to extend a finite straight line continuously in a straight

line.
3. [It is possible] to describe a circle with any center and distance [radius] '
4. That all right angles are equal to one another'
5. That if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior
anglesonthesam-esidelessthantworightangles,thetwostraightlines'if
prJduced indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles are less than the
two right angles.
COMMON NOTIONS
l. Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another'
2. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal'
3. If equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal'
60
4. Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another.
5. The whole is greater than the part.
Euclid does not naively assume that the defined concepts exist or are
consistentI as Aristotle had pointed out, one might define something that
had incompatible properties. The first three postulates, since they declare
the possibility of constructing lines and circles, are existence assertions for
these two entities. In the development ofBook I, Euclid proves the existence
of the other entities by constructing them. An exception is the plane.
Euclid presupposes that the line in Postulate I is unique; this assump-
tion is implicit in Book I, Proposition 4. It would have been better, however,
to make it explicit. Likewise, in Postulate 2 Euclid assumes the extension is
unique. fle uses the uniqueness explicitly in Book XI, Proposition 1, but has
actually already used it unconsciously at the very beginning of Book I.
Postulate 5 is Euclid's own; it is a mark of his genius that he recognized
its necessity, Many Greeks objected to this postulate because it was not
clearly self-evident and hence lacked the appeal of the others. The attempts
to prove it from the other axioms and postulates-which, according to
Proclus, commenced even in Euclid's own time-all failed. The full
history of these efforts will be related in the discussion of non-Euclidean
geometry.
As to the common notions, there are differences of opinion over which
ones were in Euclid's original version. Common Notion 4, which is the basis
for proof by superposition, is geometrical in character and should be a
postulate. Euclid uses superposition in Book I, Propositions 4 and B, though
apparently he was unhappy about the method; he could have used it to
prove Proposition 26 (a.s.a. : a.s.a. and. s.a.a. : s.a.a.), but instead uses a
longer proof. He probably found the method in works of older geometers and
did not know how to avoid it. More axioms were added to Euclid's by
Pappus and others who found Euclid's set inadequate.
4. Books I to IV of the Elements

Books I to IV treat the basic properties ol rectilinear figures and circles.
Book I contains familiar theorems on congruence, parallel lines, the Pythag-
orean theorem, elementary constructions, equivalent figures (figures with
equal area), and parallelograms. All figures are rectilinear, that is, composed
of line segments. Of special note are the following theorems (the wording
is not verbatim) :
Proposition L On a given straight line to construct an equilateral triangle.

The proof is simple. With I as center (Fig. a. I ) and, AB as radius con-
BOOKS I TO 11, OF THE
..ELEMEITAS,' 6r
Figure 4.1
struct a circle. with B as center and BA as radius construct a circle. Let c be

a point of intersection' Ther. ABC is the required triangle'
Proposition 2. To place at a given point (as an extremity) a straight line
equal to a given straight line.
One would think this can be done immediately by using Postulate 3'
But to do so means that the compass must keep its spread of the given Iength
while being transferred to the point at which the equal length is to be con-
structed. Euclid, however, assumes a collapsible comPass and gives a more
complicated construction. Of course, he does assume that the compass
,"-.irr, fixed while describing a circle with given center and radius, that is,
as long as the compass remains on the PaPer.
Propoiition 4. Two triangles are congruent if two sides and the included
argi" of o.re triangle are equal to corresponding Parts of the other'
The proof is made by placing one triangle on the other and showing that
they must coincide.
Proposition 5. The base angles ofan isosceles triangle are equal'
The proof is better than in many current elementary books, which-
assume atihis stage the existence of the bisector of angle '/' But the proof of
its existence depends upon Proposition 5. Euclid extends AB to F (fig' a'2)
and AC to G so that BF : CG' Then LAFC [,{GB' Hence pg : GB'
= : {6'
4ACF : jABGand, +3 : <4. Now ACBF a trBCG' Hence {5
Therelore +l : +2. Pappus proves the theorem by regarding the given
triangle as IABC and LACB. Then Proposition 4 applies and the base
angles are equal.
Proposition 16. An exterior angle ofa triangle is greater than either remote
interior angle.
6e EUCLID AND APOLLOMUII
Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4
The proof (Fig. a.3) requires an infinitely extensible straight line, be-
cause in it AE 'ts extended its own length to fl and it must be possible to do
this.
Proposition 20. The sum of any two sides of a triangle is greater than the
third side.
This theorem is as close as one comes in Euclidean geometry to the fact
that the straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
Proposition 27 . If a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the
alternate interior angles equal to one another, the straight lines will be
parallel to one angther.
The proofis made by contradiction using the proposition on the exterior
angle of a triangle. The theorem establishes the existence of at least one
parallel line to a given line and through a given point.
Proposition 29. A straight line falling on parallel straight lines makes the
alternate interior angles equal to one another, the exterior angle equal to
the interior and opposite angle [corresponding angles are equal], and the
interior angles on the same side equal to two right angles.
The proof (Fig. a.a) supposes 4l + 42. If {2 is greater, add {4 to
each. Then 42 + 44 > +l + {4. This implies that {l * {4 is less
than two right angles. By the parallel postulate, which is used for the first
time, the two given lines z48 and CD would have to meet whereas they are
parallel by hypothesis.
Proposition 44. To a given straight line to apply, in a given rectilinear
angle, a parallelogram equal to a given triangle.
This proposition (Fig. a.5) says that we are given a triangle C, an angle
D, and a line segment lB. We are to construct on AB as one side a parallelo-
gram equal in area to C and containing angle D as one angle. We shall not
give Euclid's proof, which depends upon preceding propositions. The major
point ofnote is that this is the first ofthe problems included under the theory
ofapplication ofareas, the theory ascribed to the Pythagoreans by Eudemus
(as reported by Proclus). In this case we apply (exactly) an atea to AB.
Booxs r ro rv oF ttG "Er,EIlEttts" 63
Figure 4.5
Secondly, this is an example of transformation from one area to another.

Thirdly, in the special case when D is a right angle the Parallelogram must
be a rectangle. Then the area ofthe given triangle and' AB may be regarded
as given quantities. The other side ofthe rectangle is then the quotient ofthe
given area C and AB. Hence we have division performed geometrically; this
theorem is an o<ample of geometrical algebra.
Proposition 47. In right-angled triangles the square on the side subtending
the right angle is equal to the sum of the squares on the sides containing the
right angle.
This is of course the Pythagorean theorem' The proof is made by
means of areas, as in many high school texts. One shows (Fig' 4.6) that
LABD 6FBC, that rectangle BL : 2 LABD, and rectangle GB :
2 LFBC.=Then rectangle BI : square GB. Likewise rectangle C, : square
AK.
Figure 4.6
64
Figure 4.7
The theorem also shows how to obtain a given square whose area is a
sum of two given squares, that is, how to find r such that x2 : a2 * b2.
Hence it is another example of geometrical algebra.
Proposition 48. If in a triangle the square on one side be equal to the

sum of the squares on the remaining two sides of the triangle, the angle
contained by the remaining two sides is a right angle.
This proposition is the converse of the Pythagorean theorem. The proof
in Euclid (Fig. a.7) constructs lD perpendicular to AC and equal to AB.We
have by hypothesis that
AB2+AC2:BC2
and we have from the right triangle ADC that
ADz+ACz:DCg.
Since,4B : AD then BCz : DCz and so DC : .BC. Hence the two triangles
are congruent by.r.s.s., so that angle CAB mtxt be a right angle.
The outstanding material in Book II is the contribution to geometrical

algebra. We have already Pointed out that the Greeks did not recognize the
existence of irrational numbers and so could not handle all lengths, areas,
angles, and volumes numerically. In Book II all quantities are represented
geometrically, and thereby the problem of assigning numerical values is
avoided. Thus numbers are replaced by line segments. The product of two
numbers becomes the area of a rectangle with sides whose lengths are the
two numbers. The product of three numbers is a volume. Addition of two
numbers is translated into extending one line by an amount equal to the
length of the other and subtraction into cutting off from one line the length
of a second. Division of two numbers, which are treated as lengths, is merely
indicated by a statement that expresses a ratio of the two lines; this is in
accord with the principles introduced later in Books V and VI'
Division of a product (an area) by a third number is performed by
finding a rectangle with the third number (length) as one side and equal in
..ELEMBNTS'' 65
BOOKS I TO fv OF THE
b ab b2
l, a2 ab
a b
Figure 4.9
area to the given product. The other side of the rectangle is, of course, the
quotient. The construction uses the theory of application of areas already
touched upon in Proposition 44 of Book I. The addition and subtraction of
products are the addition and subtraction of rectangles. The sum or differ-
ence is transformed into a single rectangle by means of the method of appli-
cation ofareas. The extraction ofa square root is, in this geometrical algebra,
the finding ofa square equal in area to a rectangle whose area is the given
quantity; this is done in Proposition 14 (see below) '
.ThefirsttenpropositionsofBooklldealgeometricallywiththefollow.
ing equivalent algebraic propositions. stated in our notation some ofthese are:
l. + c + d + "') : ab + ac +
a(b ad + "' ;
2. (a + b)a + (a + b)b : (a + b)2;
3. (a + b)a: ab * a2;
4.(a+b)2:a2+2ab+b2;
'\2
5. ab *{i. . b) - b\ : {Lr'* b)l ;
6. (2a + b)b + a2 : (a + b)2'

The geometric statement of (l ) is contained in:
Proposition L lfthere be two straight lines (Fig. 4.8) and one of them be cut
into arry number of segments whatever, the rectangle contained by the two
straighi lines is equal to the rectangles contained by the uncut straight line
and each of the segments.
Propositions 2 and 3 are really special cases of Proposition I but are
separateiy stated and proved by Euclid' The geometric form of (4) above is
well known. Euclid's statement is:
Proposition 4. If a straight line be cut at random (Fig' 4'9), the square orr
the whole is equal to thi squares on the segments and twice the rectangle
contained by the segments.
The proof gives the obvious geometrical facts shown in the 6gure'
66
Figure 4.1 I
Proposition ll. To cut a given straight line so that the rectangle contained
by the whole and one of the segments is equal to the square on the remaining
segment.
This requires that we divide lB (Fig. a.10) at some point I/ so that
AB.BH : AH.AH. Euclid's construction is as follows: Let AB be the given
line, Construct the square ABDC. Let E be the midpoint of AC. Draw BE.
Let F on C,tl produced be such that EF : EB. Construct the square lFGIl.
Then rlI is the desired point on lB, that is,
AB.BH: AH.AH.
The proof is made by means of areas, using preceding theorems, including
the Pythagorean theorem-the crucial theorem being Proposition 6.
The importance of the theorem is that r4.B of length a is divided into
two s€gments of lengths x and a - r so that
(a-r)a:x2
or
x2 + ax: a2,
Hence we have a geometric way of solving this quadratic equation. Also'

lB is divided in extreme and mean ratio, that is, from AB'BH : AH'AH
we have AB:AH: AH:BH. Other propositions in Book II amount to
solving the quadratics a* - *2 : b2 and ax * x2 : b2.
Proposition 14. To construct a square equal to a given rectilinear figure'
The given rectilinear figure can be any polygon, but ifthe given figure
is a rectutgh, ABEF (Fig.4.l l), then Euclid's method amounts to the follow-
BOOKS I TO TV OF fiIE ..EI.E!,ENIE" 67
Figure 4.1
ing: Extend lB to C so that 8C : BE. Construct the circle on z{Cas diameter.

Erect the perpendicular DB at B. The desired square is the square on DB.
Euclid gives a proof in terms of areas. This theorem solves .r3 : aD or yields
the square root of o6. As we shall see, in Book VI more complicated quadratic
equations are solved geometrically.
Book III, which contains 37 propositions, begins with some definitions
appropriate to the geometry of circles and then proceeds to discuss ProPer-
ties of chords, tangents, secants, central and inscribed angles, and so on.
These theorems are in the main familiar to us from high school Seometry.
The following theorems are worthy of special note.
Proposition 16. The straight line drawn at right angles to the diameter of a
circle from its extremity will fall outside the circle, and into the space be-
tween the straight line and the circumference another straight Iine cannot
. be
interposed; further the angle ofthe semicircle is greater, and the remaining
angle less, than any acute rectilinear angle.
The novelty in the theorem is that Euclid considers the space (Fig.
4.12) between the tangent TA and the atc ACE; he not only says that no line
can be drawn in this space and through l, which Iialls entirely outside the
circle, but also considers the angle formed by TA and, the atc ACE. Whether
this angle, which the Greeks called the hornlike angle, had a definite magni-
tude was a subject of controversy. Proposition 16 says this angle is smaller
than any acute angle formed by straight lines but it does not say the angle is
of zero magnitude.
Proclus speaks of horn angles as rue angles. The subject of the size
of horn angles was debated also in the late Middle Ages and in the Renais-
sance by Cardan, Peletier, Vieta, Galileo, Wallis, and others. What made the
horn angle especially troublesome to later commentators on Euclid is t]rat
one can draw circles of smaller and smaller diameters passing through r4 and
tangent to TA and, it seems intuitively clear that the horn angle should
increase in size but, according to the above proposition, it does not. On the
other hand, if any two horn angles are of zero size and therefore equal, they
68 EUcLTD AND APoLLoNrus
should be superposable. But they are not. Some commentators concluded

that a horn angle was not an angle.2
Book figures inscribed in and cir-
IV, in its 16 propositions, deals with
cumscribed about circles, for example, triangles, squares, regular pentagons,
and regular hexagons. The last proposition, which shows how to inscribe a
lS-sided regular polygon in a given circle, is said to have been used in
astronomy; the angle of the ecliptic (the angle made by the plane of the
earth's equator and the plane ofthe earth's orbit around the sun) up to the
time of Eratosthenes was taken to be 24o , ot I / l5 of 360'.
5. Book V: Tlu Theory of ProPortion

Book V, based on Eudoxus' work, is considered to be the greatest achieve-
ment of Euclidean geometry; its contents have been more extensively dis-
cussed and its meaning more heavily debated than those ofany other portion
of the Elcments. The Pythagoreans are supposed to have had a theory of
proportion, that is, the equality of two ratios, for commensurable magni-
todes, or magnitudes whose ratio could be expressed by a ratio of whole
numbers. Though we do not know the details of this theory, it is presumed
to be what we shall encounter in Book VII and is supposed to have been
applied to statements about similar triangles. The mathematicians before
Eudoxus who used proportions in general did not have a secure foundation
for incommensurable magnitudes. Book V extends the theory of proportion
to incommensurable ratios but avoids irrational numbers.
The notion of magnitude is intended to cover quantities or entities that
are commensurable or incommensurable with each other. Thus lengths,
areas, volumes, angles, weights, and time are magnitudes. The magnitudes
length and area have already appeared, for example, in Book II. But thus
far Euclid has had no occasion to treat other kinds of magnitudes or to treat
ratios of magnitudes and proportions' Hence he does not introduce the
general notion of magnitude until this point. His particular emphasis now is
on proportions for all kinds of magnitudes.
Despite the fact that the definitions are important in this book, there is
no definition of magnitude as such. Euclid starts with:
Definition I. A magnitude is part of a magnitude, the less of the greater,
when it measures the greater.
Part is used here to mean submultiple, as 2 is of 6, whereas 4 is not a
submultiple of 6.
2. By the usual current definition of an angle between two curves, the horn angle is of
zeto size.
BooK v: TIIE THEoRY oF PRoPoRTIoN 69
Definition 2. The greater is a multiple of the less when it is measured by the

less.
Thus multiple means integral multiple.
Definition 3. A ratio is a sort of relation in respect to size between two

magnitudes of the same kind.
It is difficult to separate the significance ofthis third definition from that
of the uext.
Definition 4. Magnitudes are said to have a ratio to one another which are
capable, when multiplied, of exceeding one another.
The meaning of this definition is that the magnitudes a an.d b have a
ratio if some integral multiple z (including I ) of a exceeds D and some integral
multiple (including 1) of D exceeds a. The definition excludes the concept
that appeared later, namely, the infinitely small quantity which is not 0,
called the infinitesimal. Euclid's definition does not allow a ratio between
two magnitudes if one is so small that some finite multiple of it does not
exceed the other. The definition also excludes infinitely large magnitudes
because then no finite multiple of the smaller one will exceed the larger. The
next definition is the key one.
Definition 5. Magnitudes are said to be in the same ratio, the first to the
second and the third to the fourth, when, if any equimultiples whatever be
taken of the first and third, and any equimultiples whatever ofthe second and
fourth, the former equimultiples alike exceed, are alike equal to, or alike fall
short of the latter equimultiples respectively taken in corresponding order'
The definition says that
ac
bd
if when we multiply a and cby ang whole number m, say, and b and dby ang
whole number z, then for all such choices of rn and z,
ma < nb implies mc < nd,

ma : nb implies mt : nd,
and
ma > nb implies nc > nd.
Just to see the meaning of this definition, let us use modern numbers'
To test whether
\/, ^/6
I \/3
7o EUCLTD AND APOLLOMUS
we should, at least theoretically, know that if m is any whole number and a

any other, then
m{2 < n.l implies *{6 < rl5

and
mfi.: n.l implies ny'6 : n{5
and
m{i, > n.l implies my'6 > n{5.
Of course, in this present o<ample the equality : n. I will not occur
^l/2
because m and, n are whole numbers whereas y'2 is irrational, but this means
that ml6 : nt/1 need. not occur. The definition merely says that if the left
side ofany one ofthe three possibilities occurs then the right side must occur.
An alternative statement of Definition 5 is that the integral m and n for
which zra < nb are the same as those m' andn'for which m'c < n'd.
It may be desirable to point out at once what Euclid does with the above
definitions. When we wish to prove that if alb: cld, then (a + b)lb:
(c + d)ld, we regard the ratios and the proportion as numbers even if the
ratios are incommensurable, and we use algebra to prove the result. We
know that we can operate with irrationals by the laws of algebra. Euclid
cannot and does not. The Greeks had not thus far justified operations with
ratios of incommensurable magnitudes; hence Euclid proves this theorem by
using the definitions he has given and, in particular, Definition 5. In effect,
he is laying the basis for an algebra of magnitudes.
Definition 6. Let magnitudes which have the same ratio be called propor-
tional.
Definition 7. When, of the equimultiples, the multiple of the first magnitude
exceeds the multiple of the second, but the multiple of the third does not
exceed the multiple ofthe fourth, then the first is said to have a greater ratio
to the second than the third has to the fourth.
The definition states that if for even one z and oll.en,ma > nbb:utmcis
not greater than nd, then alb > cld. Hence, given an incommensurable ratio
alb,itis possible to place it among all other such ratios, namely those less and
those greater.
Definition B. A proportion in three terms is the least possible.

In this case alb : blc.
Definition 9. When three magnitudes are proportional, the first is said to
have to the third the duplicate ratio of that which it has to the second.
Thus if l/B : BlC, then z4 has the duplicate ratio to C that it has to B.
fhis means that AIC : A2lB2, for A : BzlC so that AIC : B2lC2 : AzlBz.
BOOK V: THE THBORY OF PROPORTION 7I
Definition 10. When four magnitudes are continuously proportional the

first is said to have to the fourth the triplicate ratio ofthat which it has to the
second, and so on continually, whatever the proportion'
Thus if //B = BIC : ClD,then,4 has the triplicate ratio to D that it
has to B. That is, AID = A3lBr, for A: BzlC so that AID
: BzICD :
(BllCz)(ClD) : AslBs.
Definitions l l to lB defi.ne corresponding magnitudes, alternation, in-
version, composition, separation, conversion, etc' These refer to forming
(a + b)lb, (a - b)lb, and other ratios from a/D'
' Book V now proceeds to
Prove twenty-five theorems about magnitudes
and ratios of magnitudes. The proofs are verbal and depend only on the
definitions and on the common notions or axioms, such as that equals sub-
tracted from equals give equals. The postulates are not used. Euclid uses line
segments as illustrations of magnitudes to help his readers perceive the mean-
inl of the theorems and proofs, but the theorerhs apply to all kinds of
magnitudes.
We shall state some of the propositions of Book V in modern algebraic
language, using m, n, and p for integers arrd' a, b, and c for magnitudes' How-
tI illustrate Euclid's language, let us note his wording of the first
"r"i,
proposition.
Proposition 1. If there be any number of magnitudes whatever which arc,
respectively, equimultiples of any magnitudes equal in multitude, then,
*haterrer multiple one of the magnitudes is of one, that multiPle also will
be of all.
In algebraic language this means that nu + mb + mc * ''' :
n(a*b+c+...).
Proposition 4. lf alb : cld, then nalnb -- nclnd..
Proposition Ll. If alb : cltl and cld : clf t}lren alb : clf'
Note the equality of ratios depends on the definition of proportion and
Euclid is careful to prove that equality is transitive.
Proposition 12. lf alb: cld: elftbenalb: (a + c + c)l(b + d +f)'
Proposition 17.lf alb: cldthen(a - b)lb: (c - d)ld'
Proposition 18. If alb: cldthet(a + b)lb : (c + d)ld.
Some of the propositions seem to duplicate propositions in Book II'
However, the proptsitions in the latter book are asserted and proved only for
line segments, whereas Book V provides the theory for all kinds ofmagnitudes.
Book V was crucial for the subsequent history of matlrematics' The
classical Greeks did not introduce irrational numbers and sought to avoid
them in part by working geometrically, as we have already noted in our
72 EUCLTD AND APOLLONTUS
rwiew of Books I to IV. However, this use of geometry did not take care of
ratios and proportions of incommensurable magnitudes of all sorts, and this
lack was filled by Book V, which started anew with a general theory of mag-
nitude. It thereby placed all of Greek geometry that dealt with magnitudes
on a sound basis. The critical question, however, has been whether the theory
of magnitudes provided a logical basis for a theory ofreal numbers, including,
of course, the irrational numbers.
There is no question about how succeeding generations of mathema-
ticians interpreted Euclid's theory of magnitudes. They regarded it as
applicable only to geometry and therefore took the attitude that only
geometry was rigorous. Hence, when in the Renaissance and in the following
centuries irrational numbers were reintroduced and used, many mathema-
ticians objected because these numbers had no logical foundation.
A critical examination of Book V seems to establish that they were
right. It is true that the definitions and proofs as presented by Euclid in
Book V make no use of geometry. As already noted his use of line segments
in his presentation of the propositions and proofs is pedagogical only. How-
ever, if Euclid had really oflered a theory of irrationals in his theory of mag-
nitudes, it would have had to come from either one of two possible interpreta-
tions. The first is that magnitudes themselves could be taken to be the
irrational numbers, and the second is that the ratios of two magnitudes
could be the irrational numbers.
Let us suppose the magnitudes themselves could be the irrational
numbers. Then, even if we leave aside any criticisms of Euclid's rigor when
judged by modern standards, the following difficulties enter. Euclid never
defines what he means by a magnitude, or the equality or equivalence of
magnitudes. Moreover, Euclid works not with the magnitudes themselves
but with proportions. A product of two magnitudes a and 6 occurs only when
a and. b are lengths, thereby enabling Euclid to consider the product as an
area. The product aD could not then be a number because the product has
no general meaning in Euclid. Further, Euclid proves in Book V a number of
theorems on proportion which in themselves can readily be restated, as in
fact we did above, as algebraic theorems. Flowever, to prove Proposition 18
of Book V he needs to establish the fourth proportional to three given magni
tudes, which he is able to do only for magnitudes that are line segments
(Book VI, Proposition l2). Hence, not only is his theory of general magni
tudes incomplete (even for proofs he himself makes in Book XII), but what
he does establish for lengths is dependent on geometry. Moreover, Euclid
insists in Definition 3 that a ratio can be formed only of magnitudes of the
same kind. Clearly if magnitudes were numbers this limitation would be
meaningless. His concept of magnitude as used later adheres to the definition
and so is tied to geometry. Another difficulty is that there is no system of
rational numbers to which a theory of irrationals could be added. Ratios of
BOOK \Ir: STMTLAR FTGURES 73
whole numbers occur, but only as members of a proportion, and even

these ratios are not regarded as fractions. Finally, there is no product of
alb and. cfd even when all four quantities are whole numbers, let alone
magnitudes.
Now let us consider interpreting Euclid's ratios of magnitudes as num-
bers, so that the incommensurable ratios would be the irrational numbers
and the commensurable ratios, the rational numbers. If these ratios are
numbers it should be possible at least to add and multiply them. But no-
where in Euclid does one find what (alb) * (c/d) means when a, b, c, and d
are magnitudes. In Euclid's usage the ratios occur only as elements of a
proportion and hence have no general significance. Finally, as noted above,
Euclid does not have the concept of a rational number on which to build a
theory ol irrationals.
Thus the course that the history of mathematics actually took until about
I800, namely, treating continuous quantities rigorously solely on a geometric
basis, was necessary. As far as Euclid's Elements is concerned, there was no
foundation for irrational numbers.
6. Book VI: Similar Figures

Book VI, which treats similar figures and uses the theory of proportion of
Book V, opens with some definitions. We note just a few:
Definitionl. Similar rectilinear figures are those having corresponding angles

equal and the sides about the equal angles Proportional.
Definition 3. A straight line is cut in extreme and mean ratio when the whole
line is to the greater segment as the greater to the less'
Definition 4. The height of any figure is the perpendicular drawn from the
vertex to the base.
This ilefinition is certainly vague but Euclid does employ it.
In the proofs of the theorems in this book, Euclid, using his theory of
proportion, does not have to treat separately the commensurable and incom-
mensurable cases, a separation introduced by Legendre, who used an alge-
braic definition of proportion limited to commensurable quantities and so
had to treat the incommensurable cases by another argument such as a
reduetio ad absurdum.
We shall note only some of the thirty-three theorems. Again we shall
find some basic results of modern algebra treated geometrically.
Proposition l. Triangles and parallelograms [i.e. the areas] which are under
the same height [have the same altitudes] are to one another as their bases'
74 EUCLID AND APOLLONTUS
Figure 4.I3
Here Euclid uses a proportion among four magnitudes two of which are
areat.
Proposition 4. In equiangular triangles the sides about the equal angles are
proportional, and those are the corresponding sides which subtend the equal
angles.
Proposition 5. If two triangles have their sides proportional, the triangles

will be equiangular and will have those angles equal which the corresponding
sides subtend.
Proposition 12. To three given straight lines to find a fourth proportional.
Proposition 13. To two given straight lines to find a mean proportional.

The method is the familiar one (Fig. 4.13). It means from an algebraic
standpoint that, given a and b, we car. find, {d.
Proposition 19. ffhe areas o{l similar triangles are to one another in the
duplicate ratio of the corresponding sides.
We express this theorem today by the statement that the ratio of the
ar€as of two similar triangles equals the ratio of the squares of two corre-
sponding sides.
Proposition 27 , Of all the parallelograms applied to the same straight line

[constructed on part of the straight line] and deficient from the parallelo-
gram on the entire straight line] by parallelogramic figures similar and
similarly situated to that [given parallelogram] described on the half of the
straight line, [the area of] that parallelogram is greatest which is applied to
the half of the straight line and is similar to the defect.
The meaning of this proposition is as follows: We start (Fig. 4.14) with
a given parallelogram lD constructed on AC, which is one-half of a given
line segment lB. Now we consider a parallelogram AF on AK which is part
of l,B subject to the condition that the defect of LF, which is FB, is a paral-
lelogram similar to lD. We can of course obtain many parallelograms meet-
ing the conditions that AF does. Euclid's theorem states that of all such
parallelograms, the one constructed on :4C, which is half of lB, has the
largest area.
BOOK \II: STIiILAR FIGUREII 75
Figure 4.1,1
The proposition has a vital algebraic meaning. Suppose the given

parallelogiam AD is a rectangle (Fig. a.l5) and that the ratio of its sides is c
io D, where D is z4C. Now consider the rectangle .4F which is required to meet
the condition that its defect, rectangle tr?, is similar to AD- lf we denote trX
by x, then KB is bxlc. Let the length of ABbe a; then ll( : a - (b*lc)'
Hence the areas S of LF is
(r) t: -(, -+).

Proposition 27 says that ,i is a maximum when lF is AD. But AC : al2 ar.d
CD : acl2b. Hence
- azc
r<zr'
On the other hand the condition that equation (l) regarded as a quadratic
in * have a real root is that its discriminant be Sreater than or equd to 0'
That is,
a,-q!s>oc
a2c
,s<
46'
D.-------r------- E
-'l
I
I
I
I
F
Figure 4.15
EUCLID AND APOLLOMUS
76
s cD
b
s l, D'
Figurc 4.16 A
Thus the proposition tells us not only what the largest possible value of S is
but that for all possible values there is an r which satisfies (I) and which
geometrically furnishes one side, Kd of the tectangle AF. This result will be
used in the next proposition.
Before considering it let us note an interesting special case ofProposition
27. Suppose the given parallelogram AD (Fig.4.l5) is a square. Then of all
rectangles on lB deficient by a square similar to AD, the square on lC is the
greatest. But the rectangle lF on (part of) AB has arca AK'KF and since
KF : KB, the perimeter of this rectangle is the same as that of square DB or
square lD. Bwt AD has Iarger area than lF. Thus of all rectangles with the
satne perimeter the square has the greatest area.
Proposition 28. To a given straight line to apply [on part of the line as side]
a parallelogram equal to a given rectilinear figure [S] and deficient firom the
parallelogram on the entire line] by a parallelogramic figure similar to a
given one [D]. Thus [by Proposition 27] the given rectilinear figure [S] must
not be greater than the parallelogram described on half of the sraight line
and similar to the defect.
This theorem is the geometrical equivalent of the solution of the quad-
ratic equation ax - (blc)x2 : S, where S is the area of the given rectilinear
figure and is subject to the condition for a real solution, namely, S is not
greater than alcl4b.To see this, suPpose (for convenience) that the parallelo-
grams are rectangles (fig. a.16), ,S is the given rectilinear figure, D is the
other given rectangular figure with sides c and b, ais AB, and r is one side of
the desired rectangle. What Euclid constructs is the rectangle./KFG of area S
and such that the defect D' is similar to D. B:ut AKFG : ABHG - D'. Since
D' is similar to D its area is bxz lc. H.ence
(2) S=ax-!xz.
c
Thus to construct IKFG is to trnd 4( and x such that .r satisfies equation (2).
IX: THE THEORY OF NUMBERS 77
BOOKS \1I, V[I, AND
a parallelogram equal to a
Proposition 29. To a given straight line to apply
;;;;;;;tlt;.." fig,r.J [S] and eiceeding bv a parallelogramic figure similar
to a given one [D].
In afebraic terms this theorem solves
* 1!*': S
because for all positive S the

where a, b, c, ands are given' S is not limited
Propositions 28 and 29' Euclid has shown
;;;;.; #. real solution' With equation when one
ho*, in modern language, one can toi't'" ut'y quadratic
roots as lengths'
- ."." ur" pori i,"' His constructions furnish the
..
-- t.,ft falls short of the paral-
In Proporition 28 the parallelogram constructed con-
29 the parallelogram
lelog..- on the entire line AB and in Proposition parallelograms
AB. The respective
structed exceeds the one on the given line
area
*.." in Greek elteipsis arrl hgperboli' A parallelogram of specified
"ult.d in Book I, Proposition'.[4' was
constructed on the entire given line base,
as as
over to the conic sections for a
called' paraboli. These terms were carried
."uror*fri"frwillbeobviouswhenwestudyApollonius'work'
the side subtending
Proposition 31. In right-angled triangles' the figure,on
described figures on the
;;;Git angle is .q,r-ul to tte similarlnd similarly
sides containing the right angle'
This is a g:eneralization of the Pythagorean theorem'
7. Books VII, VilI, and IX: The Theory of Numbers

Books VII, VIII, and IX treat the theory
of numbers' that is' the properties
These three books are the
of whole numbers and ratios of whole numbers'
as such' In them Euclid
orrly or"s in the Elements that treat arithmetic
of two numbers as a
;;;1"r";i; numbers as line segments and the product geometry' The statements
."^"turgl", but the arguments dlo not depend on the
;;; are ,,erb"ll as opposed to the modern'ryl"tl:
fot-'
;";"i!
--- 'ftlu"y of the definitions and theorems' particularly those on -,--^-.'^-
P:9Porlrln'
historians have considered the
duplicate what was done in Book V' Hence
for numbers
q"it,i""-.f why Euclid proves all over again propositionsin Book V'
proven
- -it" of referring to proiositions already number as one kind of magni-
-insteacl
answers i,.ry. A,ittotl" did include
the discrete and the con-
t,-,a", irt i" also emp'hasized the cleavage between
and we do not know whether-Euclid was influenced by either of
;;;r., on the basis o[the vague
Aristotle's views on this matter' Nor can one decide
his notion of magnitude to include
definitions in Book V wtrether he meant
that he treated number indepen-
*iol" ,r*b... If one judged by the fact do not include numbers'
J;;,i; wo,rld co,,llt'd-" tr'ui his magnitudes
"""
78 EUcr.JD AND APoLLoNrus
Another explanation of this independent treatment of numbers is that the

thcory of numbers and of commensurable ratios existed before Eudoxus'
work and Euclid followed tradition in presenting what were two independent
developments, the pre-Eudoxian and largely Pythagorean theory and the
Eudoxian theory. He may also have believed that since the theory of numbers
can be built up on simpler foundations than the theory of magnitudes, it was
wise to do so. Onc finds alternative approaches in modern contributions to
mathematics too, and for the same reason-that they are simpler. Although
Euclid separates number and magnitude, he does have a few theorems that
relate them. For example, Proposition 5 of Book X states that commensurable
magnitudes have to one another the ratio which a number has to a number.
In the three books under discussion, as in other books, Euclid assumes
facts that he does not state explicitly. Thus he assumes without mention that
if .d divides (evenly into) B and B divides C then I divides C. Also, if ,{
dividcs.B and divides C, it divides B + C and B - C.
Book VII begins with some definitions:
Dcfnition 3. A number is a part of a number, the less of the greater, when it
meaures the greater. ffhe number which is part of another divides evenly
into the Latter.]
Dednition 5. The greater number is a multiple of the less when it is measured
by the less.
Definition I l. A prime number is that which is measured by a unit alone.
Definition 12. Numbers prime to one another [relatively prime] are those
which are measured by unit alone as a common measure'
Definition 13. A composite number is that which is measured by some
number [other than l].
Dcfinition 16. And when two numbers having multiplied one another make
some number, the number so produced is called plane, and its sides are the
numbers which have multiplied one another.
Definition 17. And when three numbers having multiplied one another
make some number, the number so produced is solid, and its sides are the
numbers which have multiplied one another.
Definition 20. Numbers are proportional when the first is the same multiple,
or the same part, or the same parts of the second that the third is of the fourth.
Definition 22. A perfect number is that which is equal to [the sum of] its
own Parts.
Propositions I and 2 give the process of finding the greatest common
measure (divisor) of two numbers. Euclid describes the process by saying
BOOXS vII, \IIIr, AND D<: TIIE TIrEORY OF NUMBERS 79
thzr Aand B are the numbers and B < l, then subtract B fron A enough
if
times until a number C less than -B is ldt. Then subtract C from B enough
times until a number less than c is left. And so on. If A and, B are relatively
prime we arrive at I as the last remainder. Then I is the greatest common
diriror. If I and I are not relatively prime we arrive at some stage where the
last number measures the one before it. This last number is the greatest
common divisor of z4 and 8. This process is referred to today as the Euclidean
algorithm.
Simple theorems about numbers follow. For example, if a: bln and
c : dln,ih", o t c : (b t /)/n. Some are just the theorems on ProPortion
previously proved for magnitudes and now proved all over again for num-
Lers' Thuslf alb: cld, then (a - c)l@ - d) : alb' Also' in Definition 15
a.6 is defined as D added to itself 4 times. Hence Euclid proves that ab
: ba'
Proposition 30. If
two numbers by multiplying one another make some
,,r.ib"r, and any prime number measures the product, it will also measure
one of the original numbers.
This result is fundamental in the modern theory of numbers' We say
that if a prime p divides a product of two whole numbers it must divide at
least one of the liactors'
Proposition 3l . Any composite number is measured by some prime numbcr'

Euclid's p.oof says that if Ais composite it is, by definition, measured by
some numbei8. If B is not prime and hence composite, B is measured byC'
Then Cmeasures.,4. If Cis not Prime, etc. Then he says, "If the investigation
be continued in this way, some prime number will be found which will
measure the number before it, which will also measure z{. For if it is not
found, an infinite series of numbers will measure the number A, ach of
which is less than the other: which is impossible in numbers'" He assumes
here that any set of whole numbers has a least number'
Book VIII continues with the theory of numberr; no new definitions are
needed. In essence the book treats geometrical progressions, A geometrical
progression is to Euclid a set of numbers in continued proportion, that is'
i1A": 4t : cld : d.le : '". This continued proportion satisfies our defini-
tion of geometric progression, for if a, b, c, d, c, ' ' ' are in geometrical Prc'
gression the ratio of any term to the next one is a constant'
Book IX concludes the work on the theory of numbcrs' There are
theorems on square and cube numbers, plane and solid numbers, and more
theorems on continued ProPortions. Of note are the following:
Proposition 14. lf anumber be the least that is measured by prime numbers'

it rvill not be measured by any other prime number ercePt those origiaally
measuring it.
8o EUoLTD AND Apor-r-oNrus
This means that if a is the product of the primes !, g, . . ., then this

decomposition of a into primes is unique.
Proposition 20. Prime numbers are more than any assigned multitude of
prime numbers.
In other words, the number of primes is infinite. Euclid's proof of this
proposition is a classic, He supposes that there is just a finite number of
primes, ly F2,. . ., ?n. He then formslr.lz. ... .?o * I and argues that if
this new number is a prime, we have a contradiction, because this prime is
larger than any of the z primes and so we would have more than z primes. On
the other hand, if this new number is composite it must be divisible (exactly)
by a prime. But this prime divisor is r,ot ?r, p2, . . ., or lo because these leave
a remainder of l. Hence there must be some other prime; and again we have
primesly ?2, . . ., ?o.
a contradiction of the assumption that therearejust thez
Proposition 35 of Book IX gives an elegant proof for the sum of a geo-

metric progression. Proposition 36 gives a famous theorem on perfect
numbers, namely, if the sum of the terms (starting with I ) of the geometric
Progression
l+2+22+...+2,'-1
is prime, the product of that sum and the last term, that is,
(1 + 2 + ... + 2L-1)2,1-L ot (2n - l)2n-1,

is a perfect number. The first four perfect numbers, 6, 28,496, and Bl2B, and
perhaps the fifth, were known to the Greeks,
8. Book X: The Classifuation of Incommensurables

Book X of the Elements undertakes to classify types of irrationals, that is,
magnitudes incommensurable with given magnitudes. Augustus De Morgan
describes the general contents of this book by saying, " Euclid investigates
every pojsible lariety of line which can be represented [in modern algebra]
by ! {a + {b, a and D representing two commensurable lines." Of course
not all irrationals are so representable, and Euclid covers only those that
arise in his geometrical algebra.
The first proposition in Book X is important for developments in later
books of the Elements.
Proposition L Two unequal magnitudes being set out, if from the greater
there be subtracted a magnitude greater than its half, and from that which
is left a magnitude greater than its ha[ and if this process be repeated con-
tinually, then there will be left some magnitude which will be lcss than the
lesser magnitude set out.
soLID GEoMEI'RY AND THE METtroD oF ExHAUsrroN 8r
At the conclusion of the prool Euclid says the theorem can be proven if
the parts subtracted be halves. One steP in the proof utilizes an axiom' not
recognized as such by Euclid, to the effect that of two unequal
"orrr"iorrly
magnitudes the smaller can be added to itself a finite number of times, so
,. f h.rr" the sum exceed the larger. Euclid bases the questionable step on
the definition of a ratio between two magnitudes (Definition 4 of Book V)'
But this definition does notjustily the step, It says that two magnitudes
have
a ratio when either can be added to itself enough times to have the sum
exceed the other; hence Euclid should prove that this can be done for
the
magnitudes he deals with. Instead he assumes that his magnitudes have a
.uti-o.rd uses the fact that the smaller can be added to itself enough times to
exceed the greater. According to Archimedes' the axiom in question
(strictly
an equivalJrt statement) was used by Eudoxus, who had established it as a
l"--.. Archimedes uses this lemma without proof and so, in effect, he too
uses it as an axiom. It is called today the axiom of Archimedes-Eudoxus'
There are I 15 propositions in Book X, though Propositions 116 and ll7
are found in some iditio.rt of Euclid. The latter gives the proof already de-
scribed in Chapter 3 of the irrationality of Vf '
9. Books XI, Xil, and XIII: Solid Geometry and the Method of
Exhaustion
Book begins the treatment of solid geometry, though some important
XI
theorems on plurr" geometry are yet to come' The book opens with defini-
tions.
Definition l. A solid is that which has length, breadth, and depth'

Definition 2. An extremity of a solid is a surface'
Definition 3. A straight line is at right angles to a plane when it makes right
angles with all the straight Iines which meet it and are in the plane'
Definition 4. A plane is at right angles to a plane when the straight lines

drawn, in orr. oi the planer, at right angles to the common section of the
planes, are at right angles to the remaining plane'
Definition 6. The inclination of a plane to a plane is the acute angle con-

tained by the straight lines drawn at right angles to the common section, at
the same point, one in each ofthe planes.
We call this acute angle the plane angle of the dihedral angle'
Also defined are parallel planes, similar solid figures, solid angle'
pyramid, prism, sphere, cone, cylinder, cube, the regular octahedron' the
8z EUCLID AND APOLLONIUS
Figurc 4.17
regular icosahedron, and other figures. The sphere is defined as the figure
comprehended by a semicircle rotated around a diameter, The cone is
defined as the figure comprehended by rotating a right-angled triangle about
one of the arms, Then if the fixed arm or axis is less, equal to, or greater than
the other arm, the cone is obtuse-angled, right-angled, or acute-angled,
respectively. The cylinder is the figure comprehended by rotating a rectangle
around one side. The significance of these last three definitions is that solid
figures, except for the regular polyhedra, arise from rotating plane figures
about an axis.
The definitions are loose, unclear, and often assume theorems. For
erample, in Definition 6 it is assumed that the acute angle is the same no
matter where it is formed on the common section of the planes. Also Euclid
intends to consider convex solids only, but does not specify this in his defini-
tions of the regular polyhedra.
The book considers only figures formed by plane elements. The first 19
of the 39 theorems of this book treat properties of lines and planes, for
example, theorems on lines perpendicular and parallel to planes. The proofs
of the early theorems in this book are not adequate, and many general
theorems about polyhedra are proved only for special cases.
Proposition 2O. lfa solid angle be contained by three plane angles, any two,
taken together in any manner, are greater than the remaining one.
That is, of the three plane angles (Fig. a.l7) CAB, CAD, and BAD, the
sum ofany two is greater than the third one.
Proposition 21. Any solid angle is contained by plane angles [the sum of
which is] less than four right angles.
Proposition 31. Parallelepipedal solids which are on equal bases and ofthe
same height are equal [equivalent] to one another.
Proposition 32. Parallelepipedal solids which are of the same height are to
one another as their bases.
solrD GEouETRY AND THE METHoD oF ExHAUsrroN 83
Book XII contains l8 theorems on areas and volumes, particularly of

curvilinear figures and figures bounded by surfaces' The dominant idea of
the book is the method of exhaustion, which comes from Eudoxus' To prove'
for example, that the areas of two circles are to each other as the squares on
their diameiers, the method approximates the areas of the two circles more
and more closely by inscribed regular polygons and, since the theorem
in
question is true ibr ihe polygons, it is proved to be rue for the circles'
The
fact that the successive inscribed polygons
têrm exhaustion comes from the
" exhaust" the circle. This term was not used by the Greeks; it was
intro-
duced in the seventeenth century' The term, as well as this loose description'
may suggest that the method is approximate and just a steP in the direction
of ih" ,-i!orow limit concept. But, as we shall see, the method is rigorous'
There is"no explicit limitini process in it; it rests on the indirect method of
proof and in ti.is *ay avoids the use of a limit' Actually Euclid's work -on
lreas .nd volumes is sounder than that of Newton and Leibniz, who tried
to build on algebra and the number system and sought to use the limit
concePt,
For a better understanding of the method of exhaustion, let us consider
one example in some detail' (In the next chapter ve shall consider
some
.*a-ples in Archimedes' work.) Book XII opens with:
Proposition l similar polygons inscribed in circles are to one another as the
squares on the diameters of the circles'
We shall not give the proof because no special feature is involved' We
come now to the crucial proposition.
Proposition 2. Circles are to one another as the squares on the diameters'
The following describes the essence of Euclid's proof: He first proves
that the circle can be " exhausted" by polygons' Inscribe a square in the
circle (Fig. 4. I B). The area of the square is more than I /2 of the area of the
and
circle because the former atea is ll2 of that of the circumscribed square
the circle, Now let ,l{B be any sidc of the
this area is larger than the area of
inscribed square. Bisect arc AB at the point C and join '4C
and CB' Draw the
tangent at C and then draw AD and 8E perpendicular to the tangent'
+1": <2 because each is l/2 of arc CB' It follows thar DE is parallel to
in, ^rrd, so ABED is a rectangle whose area is greater than that of segment
eilfCC.Hencetriangle,qBC,wbicnishalftherectangle,isgreaterthanl/2
we
of segment ABFCG. By repeating the process at each side of the square'
obtain a regular octagon, which encloses not only the square but more -than
half of the difierence between the area of the circle and the area of the
just as
square. On each side of the octagon we may construct a triangle'
triangle ACB was constructed on z4B. We then obtain a skteen-sided regular
polyg"on, which encloses the octagon and more than half of the difierence
L.r*]..rr the area of the circle and the area of the octagon' The process may
84
be r6peated as often as one wishes. Euclid next employs Proposition 1 of

Book X to affirm that the difference between the area of the circle and the
area of some regular polygon of a sufficiently large number of sides can be
made less than any given magnitude.
Now let ,S and ,S' be the areas of two circles (fig. a. 19) and let d and d,
be their diameters. Euclid wishes to prove that
(3) S:S' : 4z ' 4'2.
Suppose that this equality does not hold but that
(4) S:S' : 6z'7'2,

where S" is some area greater or less than S'. (The existence of the fourth
proportional as an area is assumed here and elsewhere
'We
in Book XII.)
Suppose.S" < ,S'. construct regular polygons of more and more sides in
Figure 4.
TIIE METIIOD OF EXHAUSTION B5
SOLID GEOMETRY AND
S' until we arrive at P' say, which is such that its area differs from S' by
one,
less than S' - S'. This polygon can be constructed because we proved
above that the difference between the circle s' and inscribed regular poly-
gons can be made less than any given magnitude and so less than S' - S"'
Then
(s) s' > P' > s'.

Inscribe in S a polygon P similar to P'. Then, by Proposition l,
P:P' : d2 td'z.
By reason of (4) we also have

P:P, : ,S:S,
P;$: P':S'.
However,sinceP<Sthen
P', < s'.
But by (5) this is a contradiction'
Similarly, one can show that S' cannot be greater than S" Hence
:
S" S', and in view of (4), the Proportion (3) is established.
This method is used to prove such critical and difficult theorems as:
Proposition 5. Pyramids which are of the same height and have triangular
bases are to one another as the bases.
Proposition 10. Any cone is a third part of the cylinder which has the same
base with it and equal height.
Proposition I 1. Cones and cylinders which are of the same height are to one
another as their bases.
proposition 12, Similar cones and cylinders are to one another in the tripli-
cate ratio [ratio of the cubes] of the diameters in their bases'
proposition lB. spheres are to one other in the triplicate ratio of their
respective diameters.
Book XIII considers properties of regular polygons as such and when

inscribed in a circle, and the problem of how to inscribe the five regular
solids in a sphere. It also proves that no more than the five types of (convex)
regular solids (polyhedra) exist. This last result is a corollary to Proposition
18, the last in the book.
86
The proof that no more than five regular solids can exist depends upon
an earlier theorem, Book XI, Proposition 21, that the faces of a solid angle
must contain less than 360'. Hence if we put together equilateral triangles
we can have three meet at each vertex of the regular solid to form a tetra-
hedron; we can use four at a time to form an octahedronl and we can use
five to form the icosahedron. Six equilateral triangles at one vertex would
add up to 360'and so cannot be used. We can use three squares at any one
vertex and thus form the cube, Then we can use three regular pentagons
at each vertex to form the dodecahedron. No other regular polygons can be
used, for even three coming together at one point will form.an angle of 360"
or more. Note that Euclid assumes convex regular solids. There are other,
nonconvex regular solids.
The thirteen books of the Elemcnts contain 467 propositions. In some of
the old editions there are two more books, both of which contain more
results on regular solids, though Book XV is unclear and inaccurate. IIow-
ever, both postdate Euclid. Book XIV is due to Hypsicles (c. 150 r.c.), and
parts of Book XV were probably written as late as the sixth century a.o.
lO. The Merits and Defects of the Elements

Since the Ehments is the first substantial source of mathematical knowledge
and one that was used by all succeeding generations, it influenced the course
of mathematics as no other book has. The very concept of mathematics, the
notion of proof, and the logical ordering of theorems were learned by
studying it, and is contents determined the course of subsequent thinking.
Hence we should note the characteristics that influenced so strongly the
future of mathematics.
Though, as mentioned before, the form ofpresentation of the individual
propositions is not original with Euclid, the form of presentation of the
entire work-the statement of all the axioms at the outset, the explicit
statement o[ all definitions, and the orderly chain of theorems-is his own.
Moreover, the theorems are arranged to go from the simple to more and
more comPlex ones.
Euclid also selected the theorems that he regarded as prior in impor-
tance. Thus he does not give, for example, the theorem that the altitudes of
a triangle meet in a point. There are theorems in other works by Euclid,
which we shall discuss shortly, that he did not deem worth including in the
Elements.
Though the requirement that the existence of figures must be demon-
strated before the figures can be received into the logical structure ante-
dates Euclid, he carries out this prerequisite with skill and sophistication. In
accordance with Postulates l, 2, and 3, the constructions permitted involve
only the drawing of straight lines and circles. This means, in effect, straight-
THE MERrrs AND DEFEcrs oF mrE "ELEMENIs" 87
edge and compass constructions. It is because Euclid could not establish the
existence ofangle trisectors that he proved no theorems involving them.
Despite some omissions and errors of proof that we shall point out
shortly, Euclid's choice of axioms is remarkable. From a small set he was
able to prove hundreds of theorems, many ofthem deep ones. Moreover, his
choice was sophisticated. His handling of the parallel axiom is especially
clever. Euclid undoubtedly knew that any such axiom states exPlicitly or
implicitly what must happen in the infinite reaches of space and that any
pronouncement on what must be true of infinite space is physically dubious
because man's experiences are limited. Nevertheless, he also realized that
some such axiom is indispensable. He therefore chose a version that states
conditions under which two lines will meet at a finitely distant point' More-
over, he proved all the theorems he could before calling upon this axiom.
Though Euclid used superposition of figures to establish congruence' a
method which rests on Common Notion 4, he was evidently concerned about
the soundness of the method, There are two objections to it: First, the con-
cept of motion is utilized and there is no logical basis for this concept; and
second, the method of superposition assumes that a figure retains all its
properties when moved from one position to another. The displaced figure
may indeed be proved congruent to a second one but the first figure in its
original position may not be congruent to the second one. To assume that
moving a figure does not change its properties is to make a strong assumption
about physical space. Indeed the very PurPose of Euclidean geometry is to
compare figures in different positions. The evidence for Euclid's concern
about the method's soundness is that he did not use it for proofs that he could
make by other means, even though superposition would have permitted a
simpler proof.
Though mathematicians generally did regard Euclid's work as a model
of rigor until well into the nineteenth century, there are serious defects that
a few mathematicians recognized and struggled with. The first is the use of
superposition. The second is the vagueness of some of his definitions and the
pointlessness of others. The initial definitions of point, line, and surlirce have
no precise mathematical meanings and, as we now recognize, could not havc
been given any because any independent mathematical development must
have undefined terms (see sec. 3). As to the vagueness of many definitions,
we have but to refer back to those in Book V as an example. An additional
objection to the definitions is that several, such as Definition 17 of Book I,
presuppose an axiom.
A critical study of Euclid, with, of course, the advantage of present
insights, shows that he uses dozens of assumptions that he never states amd
undoubtedly did not recognize. A few have been mentioned in our survey.
What Euclid and hundreds of the best mathematicians of later generations
did was to use facts either evident from the figures or intuitively so evident
88
that they did not realize they were using them. In a few instances the un-
conscious assumptions could be obviated by proofs based on the explicit
assumptions, but this is not true generally.
Among the assumptions made unconsciously are those concerning the
continuity of lines and circles. The proof of Proposition I of Book I assumes
that the two circles have a point in common. Each circle is a collection of
points, and it could be that though the circles cross each other there is no
common point on the two circles at the supposed point or points of inter-
section. The same criticism applies to the straight line. Two lines may cross
each other and yet not have a common point as far as the logical basis in the
Ehmmk is concerned.
There are also defects in the proofs actually given. Some of these are
mistakes made by Euclid that can be remedied, though new proofs would be
needed in a few instances. Another kind of defect that runs throughout the
Elemmk is the statement of a general theorem that is proved only for special
cases or for special positions of the given data.
Though we have praised Euclid for the overall organization of the
contents of the Elements, the thirteen books are not a unity, but are to an
extent compilations of previous works. For example, we have already noted
that Bools VII, VIII, and IX repeat for whole numbers many results given
for magnitudes. The first part of Book XIII repeats results of Books II and
IV. Books X and XIII probably were a unit before Euclid and were due to
Theaetetus.
Despite these defects, many of which were pointed out by later com-
mentators (Chap. 42, sec. l) and very likely also by immediate successors of
Euclid, the Elements was so successful that it displaced all previous texts on
geometry. In the third century n.c., when others were still extant, even
Apollonius and Archimedes referred to the Elements for prior results.
ll. Other Mathematical Works by Euclid

Euclid wrote a number of other mathematical and physical works, many
significant in the development of mathematics. We shall reserve discussion
of his chief physical works, the Optics and the Catoptrica, for a later chapter.
Euclid's Data was included by Pappus in his Treasury of Analysis. Pappus
describes it as consisting of supplementary geometrical material concerned
with " algebraic problems." When certain magnitudes are given or deter-
mined, the theorems determine other magnitudes. The material is not dif-
ferent in nature from what appears in the ELements but the specific theorems
are different. The Data may have been intended as a set ofexercises to review
the Elements. It is known in full.
Of the works of Euclid, next to the ELements, his Conics played the most
vital role in the history of mathematics. According to Pappus, the contents
B9
TTIE MATHEMATICAL WORK OF APOLLONIUS
of this lost work of four books became substantially the first three books of
Apollonius' Conic Secticns. Euclid treated the conics as sections olthe three
different types of cones (right-angled, acute-angled, and obtuse-angled)'
The ellipse was also obtai.rid as a section of any cone and of a circular
cylinder. As we shall see, Apollonius changed the approach to
the conic
sections.
The Pseudaria of Euclid contained correct and false geometric proofs
and was intended for the training of students' The work is lost'
On Diaisions [of figures], mentioned by Proclus, treats the subdivision
of
a given figure into othe, figr.e., as a triangle into smaller triangles or a
t.iirgl" inio triangles and quadrilaterals' A Latin translation' probably due
to Gfrard of Cremona (l li4-87), of an incorrect and incomplete Arabic
versionexists.Inl85lFranzWoepckefoundandtranslatedanotherArabic
version that seems to be correct. There is an English translation by
R' C'
Archibald.
AnotherlostworkisthePorisms.Thecontentsandeventhenatureofthe
work are largely unknown. Pappus it his Mathematieal Collection says that the
prresrzs consited of three books. It is believed from the remarks of Pappus
and Proclus that the Porisms d,ealt essentially with constructions of geometric
objects whose existence was already assured' Thus these problems
were inter-
pure theorems and constructions establishing existence- To
-Jdi.," between typical of
find the center of a circle under some given conditions would be
the problems in the Porisms.
The work Surface-I'oci, composed of two books, is mentioned by Pappus
in his collection This work, which is not extant, probably dealt with loci that
are surfaces.
Euclid's Phaenomena, though a text on astronomy, contains lB proposi-
tions on spherical Seometry ard othe"t on uniformly rotating spheres' The
earth is treated as a sphere. Some versions are extant'
12. The Mathematical Work of Apollonius

The other great Greek who belongs to the classical period' in the
two senses
the classical period
ol rrr--uriirrg and adding to the kind of mathematics
produced, is A"pollonius (c.262-190 r'c')' Apollonius was born in Perga' a
i, th" northwestern part of Asia Minor, which was under the rule of
P;g;;"- during his lifetime. He came to Alexandria in his youthheand
"ity
l.aired mathemaiics from Euclid's successors' As far as we know' re-
mained in Alexandria and became an associate of the great mathematicians
he also wrote
who worked there. His chief work was on the conic sections but
on other subjects. His mathematical powers were so extraordinary that he
becameknowninhistimeandthereafteras..theGreatGeometer.,'His
reputation as an astronomer was almost as great'
90 EUCLID AND APOLLOMUS
The conic sections, as we know, were studied long before Apollonius'

time. In particular, Aristaeus the Elder and Euclid had written works on
them. Also Archimedes' work, which we shall study later, contains some
results on this subject. Apollonius, however, stripped the knowledge of all
irrelevancies and fashioned it systematically. Besides being comprehensive,
his Conic Sections contains highly original material and is ingenious, extremely
adroit, and excellently organized. As an achievement it is so monumental
that it practically closed the subject to later thinkers, at least from the purely
geometrical standpoint. It may truly be regarded as the culmination of
classical Greek geometry.
The Conic Sections was written in eight books and contained 487 propo-
sitions. Of these books we have the first four reproduced in Greek manu-
scripts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and the next three in an
Arabic translation written in e.o. 1290. The eighth book is lost, though a
rcstoration based on indications by Pappus was made by Halley in the
seventeenth century.
Euclid's predecessors, Euclid himself, and Archimedes treated the conic
sections as arising from the three kinds of right circular cones-as they had
been introduced by the Platonist Menaechmus. Euclid and Archimedes were
aware that the ellipse can also be obtained as a section ofthe two other types
of right circular cones, and Archimedes knew in addition that sections of
obliqu circular cones made by planes cutting all the generators are ellipses.
He probably realized that the other conic sections can be obtained from
oblique circular cones.
Apollonius, however, was the first to base the theory of all three conics
on sections of one circular cone, right or oblique. He was also the first to
rccognize both branches of the hyperbola. One presumed reason that
Menaechmus and the other predecessors of Apollonius used sections per-
pendicular to one of the elements of the three types of right circular
cones is not that they did not see that other sections can be made of these
cones, but rather that they wanted to treat the converse problem. Given
curves whose geometric properties are those of the conic sections, the proof
that these curves are obtainable as sections of a cone.is more readily made
when the plane of the section is perpendicular to an element of the cone.
We consider first the definitions and basic properties of the conics,
which are in Book I. Given a circle BC ar^d any point.4 (Fig.4.20) outside
the plane of the circle, a double cone is generated by a line through .r4 and
moving around the circumference of the circle. The circle is called the base
of the cone. The axis of the cone is the line from ,4 to the center of the circle
(not shown in the figure). If this line is perpendicular to the base, the cone
is right circular; otherwise it is scalene or oblique. A section of the cone by
a plane cuts the plane of the base in a line DE. Take the diameter BC of the
base circle perpendicular to DE. Then ABC is a triangle in whose interior
9r
Figure 4.20
the axis of the cone lies; IBC is called an axial triangle. Let this triangle cut
the conic in PP' . (PP' need not be an axis of the conic section') PP' M is tbe
Iine determined iy the intersection of the cutting plane and the aliil
triangle.s In the conic section let Q'Q be any chord which is parallel to D.E
ff."i 8Q'need not be perpendicular to PP'. Apollonius then proves that
Q'Q is bisected by PP' so that VQ is half of Q'Q.
Now draw AF parallel to PM to rieet BM in tr' say' Next draw Pl
perpendicular to PM arrd in the plane of the section' For the ellipse and
hyperbola .L is chosen to satisfr the condition
PL BF.FC
fl -vlz-'
and for the parabola.L is chosen to satis$
PL BCA
T.e:
-n,s,Ac'
3. Apollonius points out that if the cone is scalene then P.tlf ir not nccecsarily pcrpcndicular
is
to O'8. f..p.rrdi"ularity holds only for right circular concs or whcn thc planc of zlBC
lrcrpendicular to thc basc of a scalene conc.
92
In tlre cases of ellipse and hyperbola we now draw P'L. From V draw VR
parallel to PL to rr,cet P'L in R. (In the case of the hyperbola the location
ofP'is on the other branch and P'Lhas to be extended to locate rt.)
After some subordinate constructions which we do not give Apollonius
proves that for the ellipse and hyperbola
(6) QVz : PV.VR.
Now Apollonius refers to QV as an ordinate and the result (6) says that the
square of the ordinate equals a rectangle applied to PZ, namely PV.VR.
Moreover, he proves that in the case of the ellipse this rectangle falls short
of the entire rectangle PV.PL by the rectangle IR which is similar to the
entire rectangle formed by PL and PP'. Hence the term "ellipse" (sec. 6).
In the case of the hyperbola, (6) still holds but the construction would
show that Zrt is longer than PL so that the rectangle PV.VR exceeds the
rectangle appli ed to PL, that is, PL.PV, by the rectangle ZR which is similar
to the rectangle formed by PL and PP'. Hence the term hyperbola. In the
case of the parabola Apollonius shows that in place of (6),
(7) QVz : PV.PL

so that the rectangle which equals QV2 is exactly the rectangle applied to
PZ with width PZ. Hence the term "parabola. "
Apollonius introduced the terminology parabola, ellipse, and hyper-
bola for the conics in place of Menaechmus' sections of the right-angled,
acute-angled, and obtuse-angled cone. Where the words parabola and ellipse
occur in Archimedes, as in his Quadrature of the Parabola (Chap. 5, sec. 3) they
were introduced by later transcribers.
Equations (6) and (7) are the basic plane properties of the conic sec-
tions. Having derived them, Apollonius disregards the cone and derives
further properties from these equations. In effect, where we now use abscissa,
ordinate, and the equation of a conic to derive properties, Apollonius uses
PV, the ordinate or semichord QV, and a geometric equality, namely (6) or
(7). Of course, no algebra appears in Apollonius' treatment.
We can readily transcribe Apollonius' basic properties into modern
coordinate geometry. If we denote PZ, which Apollonius calls the latus
rectum or the parameter of the ordinates,by 2p and denote the length ofthe
diameter PP' by d, if x is the distance PZ measured from P, and if y is the
distance QZ (which means we are using oblique coordinates), then one sees
immediately from (7) that the equation of the parabola is
Y2 = 2!x.
For the ellipse, we note that we first get from the defining equation (6) that
YQ : PV'VR.
TIIE MATHEMATICAL WORK OF APOLLOMUS
Bwt PV.VR :
x(2p - ZS). AIso, because the rectangle Z-R is similar to the
rectangle determined by PL and PP' ,
ISx
PLd
Hence 1-S : 2pxld. Then
s' : *(2p -?!!) :2e- -ry

For the hyperbola we get
Y2 :2Px *ry'
In the Apollonian construction, / is infinite for the parabola and so we see
how the parabola appears as a limiting case of ellipse or hyperbola.
To pursue further Apollonius' treatment of the conics we need some
definitions of concepts that are still important in modern geometry. Consider
a set ofparallel chords in an ellipse, say the set parallel to PQ in Figure 4.21'
Apollonius proves that the centers of these chords lie on one line lB, which
is called a diameter of the conic. (The line PP' in the basic Figure 4.20 is a
diameter.) He then proves that if through C, the midpoint of AB, a line DE
be drawn parallel to the original family of chords, this line will bisect all the
chords parallel to AB. The Iine DE is called the conjugate diameter to lB'
In the case of the hyperbola (Fig' 4.22), the chords may be inside the
branches, e.C. PQ, and the length of the diameter is that cut off (if it is cut
off) between the two branches, AB in the figure. The chords parallel to r{8,
for example R.I{, then lie between the branches. The conjugate diameter to
AB, namely D.E, which is defined to be the mean proportional between lB
and the latus rectum ofthe hyperbola, does not cut the curve' In the parabola
any diameter, that, is a line passing through the midpoints of a family of
parallel chords, is always parallel to the axis of symmetry, but there is no
diameter conjugate to a given diameter because each chord of the liamily of
chords parallel to the given diameter is infinite in length. The axes of an
94
Figure ,L23
ellipse or a hyperbola are two diameters that are perpendicular to each other.
For the parabola (Fig. 4.23), the axis is the diameter whose corresponding
chords are perpendicular to the diameter.
After introducing the basic properties of the conic sections, Apollonius
provcs simple Iiacts about conjugate diameters. Book I also treats tangents
to conics. Apollonius conceives ofa tangent as a line which hasjust one point
in common with a conic section but which everywhere else lies outside of it.
He then shows that a straight line drawn through an extremity of a diameter
(point P in the basic Figure 4.20) and parallel to the corresponding chords
of that diameter (parallel to QQ' in that figure) will fall outside the conic
and no other straight line can fall between the said straight line and the
conic (see.Elazeants, Book III, Proposition 16). Therefore the said straight Iine
touches the conic, that is, is the tangent at P.
Another theorem on tangents asserts the following: Suppose PP'
Fig. a.2q is a diameter of a parabola and QZ is one of the chords corre-
sponding to that diameter. Then if a point I be taken on the diameter but
outside the curve and such that TP : PV,where Zis the foot of the ordinate
(chord) from Q to the diameter PP', then the line 7Q will touch the parabola
at Q. There are analogous theorems for the ellipse and hyperbola.
Apollonius proves next that if any diameter of the conic other than PP'
in the basic figure (4.20) be taken, the definitive property of the conic,
equations (6) and (7), remains the same; of course QV then refers to the
Figure 4.24
THE MATHEMATICAL WORK OF APOLLOMUS 95
Figure
chords of that diameter. What he has done amounts in our language to

transformation from one oblique coordinate system to another. In this
connection, he also proves that from any diameter and the ordinates to it,
one can transform to a diameter (axis) to which the ordinates are Perlrcn-
dicular. Then, in our language, the coordinate system is rectangular.
Apollonius also shows how to construct conics given certain data-for
example, a diameter, the latus rectum, and the inclination of the ordinates
to the diameter. He does this by first constructing the cone of which the
desired conic is then a section.
Book II starts with the construction and properties of the asymptotes to
a hyperbola. He shows, for example, not only the existence of the asymPtotes
but also that the distance between a point on the curve and the asymPtote
becomes smaller than any given length by going Iiar enough out on the curve.
Then the conjugate hyperbola to a given one is introduced. It is shown to
have the same asymptotes.
Additional theorems of Book II show how to find a diameter of a conic,
the center ofa central conic, the axis ofa parabola, and the axes ofa central
conic. For example, if 7 (Fig. 4.25) is external to a conic, TQ and TQ' ate
tangents at the points Q and' Q' of the conic, and I/ is the midpoint of the
chord QQ', then ?"Zis a diameter. Another method of finding the diameter
of a conic is to draw two parallel chords; the linejoining the midpoints of the
chords is a diameter. The point of intersection of any two diameters is tlte
center of a central conic. The book concludes with methods of consructing
tangents to conics satisfying given conditions, as, for o<ample, passing
through a given point.
Book III begins with theorems about areas offigures formed by tangents
and diameters. One of the chief results here (Fig. 4'26) is that if OP and OQ
are tangents to a conic, if RSis any chord parallel to OP, and.R'S'any chord
parallel to OQ, ard if rRS and J?'S' intersect in J (internally or externally)r
then
RJ.JS OP'
de'
-ntJv:
96 EUCLID AND APOLLONTUS
Figure 4.28
The theorem is a generalization of a well-known theorem in elementary

geometry, namely, that if two chords intersect in a circle the product of the
segments of one equals the product of the segments of the other, for in this
case oP,loQz : l.
Book III then treats what we call the harmonic properties ofpole and
polar. Thus if TP alrd TQ are tangents to a conic (Fig. a.27) and if ZRS is
any line meeting the conic in .R and S and meeting P0 in 1, then
TR IR
7.S LS
That is, 7 divides ,lLS externally in the same r;rtio as .I divides it internally.
The line PQ is called the polar of the point T, and T, R, I, and S are said to
form a harmonic set of points. Also if any line through Z (Fig. 4.28), the
midpoint of PQ, meets the conic in R and S and meets the parallel to PQ
throu{,h Z in O, then
OR VR
AT:B'
The line through 7is the polar of V and O, R, V, and S are a harmonic set
of poins.
The book continues with the subject of the focal properties of central
conics; the focus ofa parabola is not mentioned here. The foci (the word is
not used by Apollonius) are defined for the ellipse and the hyperbola (Fig.
4.29) as the points F and F'on the (major) axis AA' such that AF.FA' :
AF'.F'A' : 2p.AA'14. Apollonius proves for the ellipse and the hyperbola
that the lines PF and PF' from a point P on the conic make equal angles with
the tangent at P and that the sum (for the ellipse) of the focal distances PF
znd, PF' equals AA' and the diflerence of the focal distances (for the hy-
perbola) eqrals AA'.
No concept of directrix appears in this work, but the fact that a conic
is a locus ofpoints the ratio ofwhose distances from a fixed point (focus) and
a fixed line (directrix) is constant was known to Euclid and is stated and
proved by Pappus (Chap. 5, sec. 7).
THE MATHEMATICAL WORK OF APOLLONIUS 97
There is a famous problem, partly solved by Euclid, of determining the

locus ofpoints for each of which the distances p, q, r, ar.d s to four given lines
satisfy the condition lq : ors, where ., is a given number' Apollonius says
in his prelace to the Conic Sections that this problem can be solved by the
propositions of Book III. This can indeed be done; and Pappus too knew
that this locus is a conic.
Book IV treats further properties of pole and polar. For example, one
proposition gives a method of drawing two tangents to a conic from an
external point 7 (Fig. a.30). Draw ZQR and' TQ'R'. Let O be the fourth
harmonic point to T on QR; that is, ?Q: fR : OQ:OR, and let O' be the
fourth harmonic point to 7 on Q'.R'. Draw OO'. Then P and P' are the
points of tangency.
The remainder of the book deals with the number of possible inter-
sections of conics in various positions. Apollonius Proves that two conics can
intersect in at most four Points.
Book V is the most remarkable for its novelty and originality. It deals
with the maximum and minimum lengths that can be drawn from particular
points to a conic. Apollonius starts with special points on the major axis of a
ientral conic or on the axis ofa parabola and finds the lines ofmaximum and
minimum distances from such points to the curve. Then he takes points on
the minor axis of an ellipse and does the same thing. He also proves that if O
be any point within any conic and if OP is a maximum or minimum straight
line flom O to the conic, then the line perpendicular to OP at P is tangent
P; and if O' be any point on OP produced outside the conic, then O'P is a
^t
minimum line from O'to the conic' The perpendicular to a tangent at a
point of tangency we now call a normal, and so the maximum and minimum
EUCLID AND APOLLOMUS
Figure 4.32
lines are nonnals, Apollonius next considers properties of normals to any

conic. For example, in a parabola or an ellipse a normal at any point will
meet the curve again. He then shows how from given points within or
without a conic one can construct the normals to the conic.
In the course of his investigation of the (relative) maximum and mini-
mum lines that can be drawn from a point to any conic, Apollonius deter-
mines the positions of points from which two, three, and four such lines can
be drawn. For each ofthe conics he determines the locus of points such that
from points on one side one number of normals can be drawn, and from
points on the other, another number of normals can be drawn. The locus
itself, which Apollonius does not discuss, is what lve now call the evolute of
the conic, or the locus of points of intersection of "nearby" normals to the
conic, or the envelope of the family of normals to the conic. Thus from any
point inside the evolute of the ellipse (Fig. a.31) four normals to the ellipse
can be drawn but from any point outside two normals can be drawn. (There
are orceptional points.) In the case ofa parabola, the evolute (Fig. a.32) is
the curve called a semicubical parabola (first studied by William Neile
U637-70]). F.rom any point in the plane above the semicubical parabola
three normals to the parabola can be drawn and from any point below, only
one can be drawn. From a point on the semicubical parabola two can be
drawn.
Book VI treats congruent and similar conics and segments of conics.
Segments are regions cut off by a chord jrnt as in the circle. Apollonius also
shows how, given a right circular cone, one can construct on it a conic
section equal to a given one.
Book VII has no outstanding propositions. It treats properties of con-
jugate diameters of a central conic. Apollonius compares these properties
with the corresponding properties of the axes. Thus if a and , are the axes
and c' and 6' are two conjugate diameters of an ellipse or a hyperbola,
a + b < a' + b'. Further, the sum of the squares on any two conjugate
diameters of an ellipse equals the sum of the squares on the axes. For the
BIBLIOCRAPITY 99
hyperbola the corresponding proposition holds but with difference instead

of sum. Also in an ellipse or a hyperbola the area of the parallelogram
determined by any two conjugate diameters and thc angle at which they
intersect equals the area of the rectangle determined by the axes.
Book VIII is lost. It probably contained propositions on how to deter-
mine conjugate diameters ofa (central) conic such that certain functions of
their lengths have given values.
Pappus mentions six other mathematical works of Apollonius. One of
these, On Contacls, whose contents were reconstructed by Vieta, contained the
famous Apollonian problem: Given any three points, lines, or circles, or any
combination ofthree of these, to construct a circle passing through the points
and tangent to the given lines and circles. Many mathematicians, including
Vieta and Newton, gave solutions to this problem.
The strict deductive mathematics of Euclid and Apollonius has given
rise to the impression that mathematicians create by reasoning deductively.
Our review of the three hundred years of activity preceding Euclid should
show that conjectures preceded proofs and that analysis preceded synthcsis.
In fact, the Greeks did not think much of propositions obtained by simplc
deduction. Results that sprung readily from a theorem the Greels called
corollaries or porisms. Such results, obtained without additional labor, were
regarded by Proclus as windfalls or bonuses.
We have not exhausted the contributions of the Greek genius to mathe-
matics. What we have discussed thus far belongs to the classical Greek
period; the significant epoch extending from about 300 s.c. to e.o. 600 still
awaits us. Before turning the page let us recall that the classical period con-
tributed more than content; it created mathematics in the sense in which we
understand the word today. The insistence on deduction as a method ofproof
and the preference for the abstract as opposed to the concrete detcrmined
the character of mathematics, while the selection of a most fruidul and highly
acceptable set ofaxioms and the divination and proofofhundreds oftheorems
sent the science well on its waY.
Bibliography
Ball, W. W. Rouse: A Short Account oJ ttu HisW of Matlumatics, Dovcr (reprint)'
1960, Chaps. 2-3.
Boyer, Carl B.: A History of Mathenalrrs, John Wiley and Sorx, 1968, Chaps. 7 and 9.
Coolidge, Julian L.: A History of Geomctrical Mcthods, Dover (reprint), 1963' Book l,
Chaps. 2-3.
Heath, Thomas L.: A Manual of Greck Malhcmalrcs, Dover (reprint), 1963, Chaps.
3-9 and 12.
A of Grcck Mathcmatits, Odord University Press, 1921, Vol. l,
History
Chaps.3-ll; Vol' 2, ChaP. 14.
T'lu Thirtccn Books of Euclid's Elements, 3 vols., Dover (reprint), 1956.
--i
IOO EUCLID AND APOLLONIUS
: Apllonius oJ Perga, Barnes and Noble (reprint) , 1 96 1 .

Neugebauer, Ottot Th, Exact Scicnccs in Antiquity, Princeton University Press, 1g52,
- Chap. 6.
Proclus: A Commcntary on thc Firsl Book d Euctid's Elements, Princeton University
Press, 1970.
Sarton, George: A History of Scirncc, Harvard University Press, 1952 and 1959,
Vol. l, Chaps.8, 10, ll, 17,20; Vol.2, Chap.3.
Scott, J. F.: A History of Matlumatits, Taylor and Francis, 1958, Chap. 2.
Smith, David Eugene: History oJ Mathcmatits, Dover (reprint), 1958, Vol. I,
Chap. 3; Vol. 2, Chap.5.
Struik, Dirk J,: A Concisc History of Matlumatits, Srd ed., Dover, 1967, Chap. 3.
vaa der Waerden, B. L. : Soiencc Awakening, P. Noordhoff, 1954, Chaps. .l-6.
5
The Alexandrian Greek Period:
Geometry and Trigonometry
Without the concepts, methods and results found and devel-
oped by previous generations right down to Greek antiquity
one cannot understand either the aims or the achievements of
mathematics in the last fifty years. HERMANN wEYL
l. The Founding d Alexandria

The course of mathematics has been very much dependent on the course of
history. Conquests launched by the Macedonians, a Greek people living in
the northern part of the mainland of Greece, led to the destruction of the
classical Greek civilization and paved the way for another essentially Greek
civilization ofquite different character. The conquests were begun in 352 s.c.
by Philip II of Macedonia. Athens was beaten in 338 s.c. In 336 n.c.
Alexander the Great, son of Philip, took command and conquered Greece,
Egypt, and the Near East as far east as India and as far south as the cataracts
of the Nile. He constructed new cities everywhere, both as strongholds and
as centers of commerce. The main one, Alexandria, centrally located in
Alexander's empire and intended as his capital, was founded in Egypt in
332 s.c. Alexander chose the site and drew up the plans for the buildings
and for colonizing the city, but the work was not completed for many years
thereafter.
Alexander envisioned a cosmopolitan culture in his new empire.
Because the only other leading civilization was Persian, Alexander deliber-
ately sought to fuse the two. In 325 r.c. he himself married Statira, daughter
of the Persian ruler Darius, and compelled a hundred of his generals and
ten thousand of his soldiers to marry Persians. He incorporated twenty
thousand Persians into his army and mixed them with Macedonians in the
same phalanxes. He also brought colonists of all nations to the various cities
he founded. After his death, written orders were found to transport large
groups of Europeans to Asia and vice versa.
Alexander died in 323 s.c. before he could complete his capital and
IOI
IO2 ALEXANDRIAN CEOMETRY AND TRIGONOMETRY
while still engaged in conquests. After his death, his generals fought each
other for power. Following several decades ofpolitical instability, the empire
was split into three independent parts. The European portion became the
Antigonid empire (from the Greek general Antigonus) ; the Asian part, the
Seleucid empire (after the Greek general Seleucus); and Egypt, ruled by
the Greek Ptolemy dynasty, became the third empire. Antigonid Greece and
Macedonia gradually fell under Roman domination and became unimpor-
tant as liar as the development of mathematics is concerned. The mathematics
generated in the Seleucid empire was largely a continuation of Babylonian
mathematics, though influenced by the developments we are about to
consider. The major creations following the classical Greek period were made
in the Ptolemaic empire, primarily in Alexandria.
That the Ptolemaic empire became the mathematical heir of classical
Greece was not accidental. The kings of the empire were wise Greeks and
pursued Alexander's plan to build a cultural center at Alexandria. Ptolemy
Soter, who ruled from 323 to 285 a.c., his immediate successors, Ptolemy II,
called Philadelphus, who ruled from 285 to 247 o.c., and Ptolemy Euergetes,
who reigned from 247 to 222 r.c., were well aware of the cultural importanci
of the great Greek schools such as those of Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle.
These rulers therefore brought to Alexandria scholars from all the existing
centers of civilization and supported them with state funds. About 290 s.c
Ptolemy Soter built a center in which the scholars could study and teach.
This building, dedicated to the muses, became known as the Museum, and it
housed poets, philosophers, philologists, astronomers, geographers, physi-
cians, historians, artists, and most of the famous mathematicians of the
Alexandrian Greek civilization.
Adjacent to the Museum, Ptolemy built a library, not only for the
prcservation of important documents but for the use ol the general public.
This famous library was said at one time to contain 750,000 volumes, in-
cluding the personal library of Aristotle and his successor Theophrastus.
Books, incidentally, were more readily available in Alexandria than in
classical Greece because Egyptian papyrus was at hand. In fact, Alexandria
became the center of the book-copying trade of the ancient world.
The Ptolemies also pursued Alexander's plan of encouraging a mixture of
peoples, so that Greeks, Persians, Jews, Ethiopians, Arabs, Romans, Indians,
and Negroes came unhindered to Alexandria and mingled freely in the city.
Aristocrat, citizen, and slave jostled each other and, in fact, the class dis-
tinctions of the older Greek civilization broke down. The civilization in
Egypt was influenced further by the knowledge brought in by traders and by
the special expeditions organized by the scholars to learn more about other
parts of the world. Consequently, intellectual horizons were broadened. The
long sea voyages of the Alexandrians called for far better knowledge of
geography, methods of telling time, and navigational techniques, while
THE CHARACTER OF ALEXANDRIAN GREEK MATHEMATICS IO3
commercial competition generated an interest in materials, in efficiency of

production, and in improvement of skills. Arts that had been despised in the
classical period were taken up with new zest and training schools were
established. Pure science continued to be pursued but was also applied.
The mechanical devices created by the Alcxandrians are astonishing
even by modern standards. Pumps to bring up water from wells and cisterns,
pulleys, wedges, tackles, systems of gears, and a mileage-measuring device no
different from what may be found in the modern automobile were used
commonly. Steam power was employed to drive a vehicle along the city
streets in the annual religious parade' Water or air heated by fire in secret
vessels of temple altars was used to make statues move. The awe-struck-
audience observed gods who raised their hands to bless the worshipers, gods
shedding tears, and statues pouring out libations. Water power operated a
musical organ and made figures on a fountain move automatically while
compressed air was used to operate a gun. New mechanical instruments'
including an improved sundial, were invented to refine astronomical
measurements.
The Alexandrians had an advanced knowledge of such phenomena as
sound and light. They knew the law ofreflection of light and had an empirical
grip on the law ofrefraction (Chap. 7, sec. 7), knowledge which they applicd
to the design of mirrors and lenses. In this period there appeared for the
first time a work on metallurgy, which contained far more chemistry than
the few empirical facts known to the earlier Eglptian and Greek scholars'
Poisons were a specialty. Medicine flourished, Partly because the dissection
of human bodies, forbidden in classical Greece, was now permitted, and the
art of healing reached its pinnacle in the work of Galen (129-+.201)' who,
however, lived chiefly in Pergamum and Rome. Hydrostatics, the science of
the equilibrium of bodies immersed in fluids, was investigated interuively and
indeed founded in systematic form. The greatest of their scientific achieve-
ments was the first truly quantitative astronomical theory (Chap. 7, sec.'t)'
2. The Character d Alexandrian Greek Matlurnatbs

The work of the scholars at the Museum was divided into four departments-
literature, mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. Since two of these were
essentially mathematical and medicine, through astrology, involved some
mathematics, we see that mathematics occupied a dominant place in the
Alexandrian world. The character of the mathematics was very much affccted
by the new civilization and culture. No matter what mathematicians may
say about the purity of their subject and their indifference to and elevation
above their environment, the new Hellenistic civilization produced a
mathematics entirely different in character from that of the classical period.
Of coqrse Euclid and Apollonius were Alexandrians; but, as we have
IO4 ALE,IANDRIAN GEOMETRY AND TRIGONOMETRY
already noted, Euclid organized the work of the classical period, and
Apollonius is exceptional in that he too organized and extended classical
Greek mathematics-though in his astronomy and his work on irrational
numbers (both of which will be presented in later chaPters), he was some-
what affected by the Alexandrian culture. To be sure, the other great
Ale:<andrian mathematicians, Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Nico-
medes, IIeron, Menelaus, Ptolemy, Diophantus, and Pappus, continued to
display the Greek genius for theoretical and abstract mathematics, but with
striking differences. Alexandrian geometry was devoted in the main to
results useful in the calculation of length, area, and volume' It is true that
some such theorems are also in Euclid's Elements. For example, Proposition l0
of Book XII asserts that any cone is a third part of the cylinder which has
the same base and height. Hence if one knows the volume of a cylinder he
can compute the volume of a cone. However, such theorems are relatively
scarce in Euclid, whereas they were the major concern ofthe Alexandrian
geometers. Thus, while Euclid was content to prove that the areas of two
circles are to each other as the squares on their diameters-which leaves us
with the knowledge that the area A : kd2 b:ut without a value for /r-
Archimedes obtained a close approximation to zl so that circular areas
could be computed.
Further, the classical Greeks, because they would not entertain irra-
tionals as numbers, had produced a purely qualitative geometry. The
Alexandrians, following the practice of the Babylonians, did not hesitate
to use irrationals and in fact applied numbers freely to lengths, areas, and
volumes. The climax of this work was the development of trigonometry.
Even more significant is the fact that the Alexandrians revived and
extended arithmetic and algebra, which became subjects in their own right.
This development of the science of number was, of course, necessary if
quantitative knowledge was to be obtained either from geometrical results
or from the direct use of algebra.
The Alexandrian mathematicians took an active hand in the work on
mechanics. They calculated centers of gravity of bodies of various shapes;
they dealt with forces, inclined planes, pulleys, and gears; and they were
often inventors. They were also the chief contributors of their time to the
work on light, mathematical geography, and astronomy.
In the classical period mathematics had embraced arithmetic (of the
whole numbers only), geometry, music, and astronomy. The scope of mathe-
matics was broadened immeasurably in the Alexandrian period' Proclus,
who drew material from Geminus of Rhodes (lst cent. B.c.), cites the latter
on the divisions of mathematics (presumably in Geminus' time) : arithmetic
(our theory of numbers), geometry, mechanics, astronomy, optics, geodesy,
canonic (science of musical harmony), and logistic (applied arithmetic).
According to Proclus, Geminus says : " The entire mathematics was separated
AREAS AND VOLUMES rN TlrE WORK OF ARCHTMEDES rO5
into two main divisions with the following distinction: one part concerned
itself with the intellectual concepts and the other with material concepts."
Arithmetic and geometry were intellectual. The other division was material.
However, this distinction was gradually lost sight of, if it was still significant
as late as the first century s.c. One can say, as a broad generalization, that
the mathematicians of the Alexandrian period severed their relation with
philosophy and allied themselves with engineering.
We shall treat first the Alexandrian work in geometry and trigonometry.
In the next chapter we shall discuss the arithmetic and algebra.
3. Areas and Volumes in the Work of Archimedes

There is no one individual whose work epitomizes the character of the
Alexandrian age so well as Archimedes (287-212 r.c.), the greatest mathe-
matician in antiquity. The son of an astronomer, he was born in Syracuse, a
Greek settlement in Sicily. As a youth he came to Alexandria, where he
received his education. Though he returned to Syracuse and spent the rest of
his life there, he kept contact with Alexandria. He was well known in the
Greek world and greatly admired and respected by his contemporaries.
Archimedes was possessed ofa lofty intellect, great breadth ofinterests-
both practical and theoretical-and excellent mechanical skill. His work in
mathematics included the finding of areas and volumes by the method of
exhaustion, the calculation of z (in the course of which he approximated
square roots of small and large numbers), and a new scheme for representing
large numbers in verbal language. In mechanics, he found the centers of
gravity of many plane and solid figures and gave theorems on the lever. The
area of hydrostatics that deals with the equilibrium of bodies floating in
water was founded by him. He is also reputed to have been a good astronomer.
His inventions so f;ar excelled the technique of his times that endless
stories and legends grew up about him. Indeed in popular esteem his inven-
tions overshadowed his mathematics, though he is ranked with Newton and
Gauss as one ofthe three greatest in that field. In his youth he constructed a
planetarium, a contrivance operated by water power that reproduced the
motions of the sun, moon, and planets. He invented a pump (Archimedean
screw) for raising water from a river; he showed how to use the lever to move
great weights; he used compound pulleys to launch a galley for King Hieron
of Syracuse; and he inventcd military engines and catapults to Protect
Syracuse when it was under attack by the Romans. Taking advantage ofthe
focusing properties of a paraboloidal mirror, he concentrated the sun's rays
on the Roman ships besieging Syracuse and burned them.
Perhaps the most famous of the stories about Archimedes is his discovery
of the method of testing the debasement of a crown of gold. The king of
106 ALEXANDRIAN G4OMETRY AND TRIGONOMBTRY
Syracuse had ordered the crown. When it was delivered, he suspected that it
was filled with baser metals and sent it to Archimedes to devise some method
of testing the contents without, of course, destroying the workmanship.
Archimedes pondered thc problem; one day while bathing he observed that
his body was partly buoyed up by the water and suddenly grasped the
principle that enabled him to solve the problem. He was so excited by this
discovery that he ran out into the street naked shouting " Eureka ! " (" I have
found it!") He had discovered that a body immersed in water is buoyed up
by a force equal to the weight of the water displaced, and by means of this
principle was able to determine the contents of the crown (see Chap' 7,
sec. 6).
Though Archimedes was a remarkably ingenious and successful in-
ventor, Plutarch says that these inventions were merely "the diversions of
geometry at play." According to Plutarch, Archimedes " possessed so high a
spirit, so profound a soul, and such treasures of scientific knowledge that,
though these inventions had obtained for him the renown of more than
human sagacity, he yet would not deign to leave behind him any written
work on such subjects, but, regarding as ignoble and sordid the business of
mcchanics and every sort ofart which is directed to use and profit, he placed
his whole ambition in those speculations in whose beauty and subtlety there
is no admixture of the common needs for life." However Plutarch's status as
a storyteller is far higher than his status as a historian. Archimedes did write
books on mechanics and we have one entitled On Floating Bodies and another,
On tlu Equilibium of Plancs; two others, On l*aers and On Centers of Graaity,
are lost. He also wrote a work on optics that is lost, and did deign to write
about his inventions I though the work has vanished, we know definitely that
he wrote On Splure-making, which describes an invention displaying the
motions of the sun, the moon, and the five planets about the (fixed) earth.
The death of Archimedes portended what was to happen to the entire
Greek world. In 216 s.c. Syracuse allied itself with Carthage in the second
Punic war between that city and Rome. The Romans attacked Syracuse in
2L2 s.c. While drawing mathematical figures in the sand, Archimedes was
challenged by one of the Roman soldiers who had just taken the city' Story
has it that Archimedes was so lost in thought that he did not hear the
challenge of the Roman soldier. The soldier thereupon killed him, despite
the order of the Roman commander, Marcellus, that Archimedes be un-
harmed. Archimedes was then seventy-five and still in full possession of his
powen. By way of " compensation," the Romans built an elaborate tomb
upon which they inscribed a famous Archimedean theorem.
Archimedes' writings took the form of small tracts rather than large
books. Our knowledge of these works comes from extant Greek manuscripts
and from Latin manuscripts translated from the Greek from the thirteenth
century onward. Some of the Latin versions were made from Greek
AREAS AND VOLUMES IN TIIE WORK OF ARCIIIMEDES r07
Figure 5.1
manuscripts available to those translators but not to us. In 1543 Tartaglia

did a translation into Latin of some works of Archimedes'
Archimedes' geometrical work is the zenith of Alexandrian Greek
mathematics. In his mathematical derivations Archimedes uses theorems of
Euclid and Aristaeus, and still other results which he says are manifest, that
is, can readily be proved from the known results. His proofs are thereforc
solidly established but not easy for us to follow because we are not familiar
with many of the methods and results of the Greek geometers.
In his work On tlu Sqhere and Cglindtr, Archimedes starts with definitions
and assumptions. The first assumption or axiom is that of all lines (curves)
which have the same extremities the straight line is shortest. Other axioms
involve the lengths of concave curves and surfiaces. For example ADB (Fig-
5.1) is assumed to be less than ACB. These axioms enable Archimedes to
compare perimeters of inscribed and circumscribed polygons with the
perimeter of the circle.
After some preliminary propositions, he proves in Book I:
Proposition 13. The surface of any right circular cylinder o<cluding the
to [the area of] a circle whose radius is a mean proportional
bases is equal
between the side [a generator] and the diameter of its base.
This is followed by many theorems about the volumes of cones. Of

great interest nre:
Proposition 33. The surface of any sphere is four times the [area of the]
greatest circle on it.
Corollary to Prop. 34. Every cylinder whose base is the greatest circle in a
sphere and whose height is equal to the diameter of the sphere is 3/2 of [the
volume of] the sphere, and its surface together with its bases is 3/2 of the
surface of the sphere.
That is, he compares the surface area and volume of a sphere and a
cylinder circumscribed about the sphere. This is the famous theorem which
in accordance with Archimedes' wishes, was inscribed on his tombstone.
He then proves in Propositions 42 arl.d,43 that the surface of the segment
ALMNP of a sphere is the area of a circle whose radius is lZ (Fig. 5.2).
The segment can be less or more than a hemisphere.
IOB ALEXANDRIAN GEOME'TRY AND TRIGONOMETRY
Figure 5,2
The theorems on surlbce area and volume are proved by the method of
exhaustion. Archimedes uses inscribed and circumscribed rectilinear figures
to " exhaust" the area or volume, and then, like Euclid, uses the indirect
method of proof to complete the argument.
Some theorems in the second book of Oz thc Sphere and Cylinder, which is
concerned largely with segments of a sphere, are significant because they
contain new geometrical algebra. For example, he gives:
Proposition 4. To cut a given sphere by a plane so that the volumes of the
segments are to one another in a given ratio.
This problem amounts algebraically to the solution of the cubic
equation
(a-x):c:b2zx2
aud Archimedes solves it geometrically by finding the intersection of a
parabola and a rectangular hyperbola.
The work on conoids and spheroids treats properties of figures ofrevolution
generated by conics. Archimedes' right-angled conoid is a paraboloid ol
ievolution. (In Archimedes' time the parabola was still regarded as a section
ofa right-angled cone.) The obtuse-angled conoid is one branch ofa hyper-
boloid of revolution. Archimedes' spheroids are what we call oblate and
prolate spheroids, which are figures of revolution generated by ellipses' The
main object olthe work is the determination of volumes of segments cut off
from the three solids by planes. The book also contains some of Archimedes'
work on the conic sections already alluded to in the discussion olApollonius.
As in other works, he presupposes theorems that he deems easily proved or
that can be proved by methods he has previously used' Many of the proofs
use the method of exhaustion. some examples of the contents are furnished
by the following ProPositions:
Proposition 5. lf AA' and BB' be the major and minor axes of an ellipse and
ifd be the diameter olany circle, then the area ofthe ellipse is to the area of
the circle as AA' 'BB' is to de.
AREAS AND VOLUMES IN THE WORK OF ARCHIMEDES r09
I
I
Figure 5.3
The theorem says that if 2a is the major axis and 2D is the minor axis
and s and s' are the areas of the ellipse and circle, then sls' : 4abld2' Sirrce
s':(il4)d2,s:tab.
Proposition 7. Given an ellipse with center C and a line CO PerPendicular
to tire plane of the ellipse, it is possible to find a circular cone with vertex O
and such that the ellipse is a section of it.
Clearly Archimedes realized that some, at least, of the several conic
sections can be obtained from the same cone, a fact that Apollonius utilized.
Proposition I l. If a paraboloid of revolution be cut by a plane through, or

purull"l to, the axis [of revolution] the section will be a parabola equal to
ihe original parabola which generated the paraboloid ' ' ' ' If the paraboloid
be cut Ly . plur," at right angles to its axis, the section will be a circle whose
center is on the axis.
There are similar results for the hyperboloid and spheroid'
Among principal results of the work are:
Proposition 2l . Any segment [the volume] of a paraboloid of revolution is

half as Iarge again as the cone or segment of a cone which has the same
base and the same axis.
The base is the area (Fig. 5.3) of the plane figure, ellipse or circle,
which is cut out on the paraboloid by the plane determining the segment'
The parabolic section Bz4C and BC on the base are cut out by a plane through
the axis of the paraboloid and perpendicular to the original cutting plane'
EF is the tangent to the parabola that is parallel to BC, and ,4 is the point of
tangency. Ai, drawn parallel to the axis ol the paraboloid, is the axis ofthe
segment. It can be shown that D is the midpoint of CB' Also, if the base is
an ellipse then cB is its major axis; if the base is a circle then cB is its
diameter. The cone has the same base as the segment, and has vertex I and
zxis AD.
ALEXANDRIAN GEOMETRY AND TRIGONOMETRY
-\ I
I I
I I
I lJv I
,l I
I
Figurc 5.4
Proposition 24. If from a paraboloid of revolution two segments be cut off

by planes drawn in tmy rlrlannllaer, the segments will be to one another as the
squares on their axes.
To illustrate the theorem, suppose the planes are perpendicular to the
axis of the paraboloid (Fig. 5.a) ; then the two volumes are to each other as
llYt is to llY'3. There are similar theorems for segments of hyperboloids
and spheroids.
One of the very novel works of Archimedes is a short treatise known as

Tlu Mcthod, in which he shows how he used ideas from mechanics to obtain
correct mathematical theorems. This work was discovered as recently as
1906 in a library in Constantinople. The manuscript was written in the tenth
century on a parchment that contains other works of Archimedes already
known through other sources. Archimedes illustrates his method of discovery
with the problem of finding the area of a parabolic segment CBz4 (Fig. 5.5).
In this basically physical argument he uses theorems on centers of gravity
established elsewhere by him.
ABC (Fig. 5.5) is any segment of a parabola bounded by the straight
line lC and the arc ABC. Let CE be the tangent to the parabola at C; let D
be the midpoint of CA; and let DBE be the diameter through D (line
parallel to the axis of the parabola). Then Archimedes, referring to Euclid,s
Cazr?s, states that
(r) EB : BD,
though Euclid's proof of this fact is not known. Now draw AF parallel to ED
and let CB cut r4.F in I(. Then, by (l) and the use of similar triangles, one
proves that FK : KA. Produce CK to H so that Cr( : .I(1L Further, let
MNPO be any diameter of the parabola. Then MN : -MO, because of (l)
and the use of similar triangles.
Now Archimedes compares the area of the segment and the area of
triangle CFA. He regards the first area as the sum of line segments such as
PO and the area of the triangle as the sum of line segments such as MO.
He then proves that
HK.OP: KN.MO.
AREAS AND VOLI'MES IN THE ll,ORK OF ARCHIMEDES
Figure 5,5 P'
Physically this means that if we regard .r(II and .t(.tY as arms of a lever with a
fulcrum at r, then oP regarded as a weight placed at Ir would balance the
weight of MO placed at lY. Consequently the sum of all the line segments
suci as pO placed at I/ will balance the sum of all the line segments such as
MO each concentrated at its midpoint, which is the center of gravity of a
line segment. But the collection ofsegments MO each placed at its center of
g..riti is .. equivalent" to the triangle CAF placed at its center of gravity.
in his book On thc Equilibrium of Plarus, Archimedes shows that tJris center
is X on CI( where X* : 1t1l1CX. By the law of the lever, r(X'the area of
triangle CFA : HK'area of parabolic segment or
ACFA HK
_-------:- 3
(2)
segrnentcBA KX I
Archimedes wishes to relate the area of the segment to vtzrryle ABC'

He points out that (the area of) this triangle is one half of uiat:ry:le CKA
bec"rrse both have the same base cA and, the altitude of one is readily shown
to be half of the altitude of the other. Moreover, triangle Cr(z{ is one half of
triangle CFz4 (because KA is half of FA). Hence triangle z{'BC is one fourth
of triingle CF) and, from (2), he has that the area of segment LBC is to the
area of triangle ABC as 4 is to 3-
In this mechanical method Archimedes regards tJre area of the parabolic
segment and of triangle CFl4 as sums of an infinite number of line segments'
(a)
Figure 5,6, a and b
This method, he says, is one of discovery but not of rigorous geometrical

proof. He shows in this treatise how effective the method is by using it to
discover other theorems on segments of spheres, cylinders, spheroids, and
paraboloids of revolution.
In his book Quadrature of tlu Parabola Archimedes gives two methods for
finding the area of the parabolic segment. The first of these is similar to the
mechanical argument just examined in that he again balances areas by
means of the principle of the lever, but his choice of areas is different. His
conclusion is ofcourse the same as that in (2) above. It is given in Proposition
16. Now Archimedes knows the result he wishes to prove and he proceeds to do
so by rigorous mathematics in a sequence of theorems (Propositions lB-24).
The first step is to prove that the parabolic segment can be " exhausted "
by a series of triangles. Let QPq (Fig. 5.6a) be the parabolic segment and
let PV be the diameter bisecting all chords parallel to the base Qq of the
segment so that Zis the midpoint of Qq. It is intuitively apparent and proved
in Proposition 18 that the tangent at P is parallel to Q4. Next take QR and
q,S parallel to PZ. Then triangle QPq is one half of parallelogram
Q.RS4 and
so triangle QPq is greater than one half of the parabolic segment.
As a corollary to this result, Archimedes shows that the parabolic
segment can be approximated by a polygon as closely as one pleases, for by
constructing a triangle in the segment cut off by PQ (Fig. 5.6b) wherein
P1V, is the diameter of that segment one can prove by simple geometry
(Proposition 21) that (the area of) triangle PP.Q
- (l/B) triangle PQ4.
Hence triangle PPIQ and triangle PP\q, which is constructed on P4 and has
the same properties as triangle PP1Q, are together I 14 of triangle PQq;
AREAS AND VOLUMES IN TIIE WORK OF ARCIIIMEDES II3
triangles
moreover, by the result in the preceding paragraph, the two smaller
fill out more than half of the parabolic segments in which they lie' The
triangles on the new chords PLP' PP'L' and' P\q
pro".r, of QP1,
"orrrtructing entirely analogous to the corre'
can be continued. This part of the proof is
sponding
- part of Euclid's theorem on the areas of two circles'
ff"t we have the conditions sufficient to apply Proposition I of Book
"e
of Euclid's Elements; that is, we can assert that the area ol the
polygonal
X
flgure obtained by adding triangles to the original triangle PQ4'
that is' the
atea
(3) LPQc + Ql4) LPQq + (l/16) LPQc'' '
to afinite number of terms can approximate the parabolic segment as closely

., oir. pl"ur"r; that is, the difference between the area of the segment and
the finiie sum (3) can be made less than any preassigned quantity'
Now Archimedes applies the indirect method of proof that completes
of a
the proof by the method of exhaustion' He first proves that for n terms
geometricai progression in which the common ratio is l/4,
(4) AL + A2 + "'+ A, + (tl3)A": (413)AY
This is readily proven in many ways; we can do it by our formula for -the
sum of z terms of a geometrical progression' In the application of (4)' ,t4t is
triangle PQq.
ifren e."ni-edes shows that the atea A of the parabolic segment cannot
be greater or less than (4/3)24r. His proof is simply that if th e area
A exceeded
tten he could g"i 1n"lt"; set of, triangles whose sum S would
91614 " given magnitude' and
aii#, f.orn the area of the segment by less than any
hence the sum S would exceed (4/3)/t' That is,
A>s>(413)Ar
But bY (4) ir's contains'j"*;r';.nl
*,u,r,
or
s< (+13)41.
I{ence there is a contradiction.

Likewise, suPpose one assumes that the area 't4 of the parabolic segment
is less than (4ti)Ar. Then (4/3),41 - A is a definite number' Since the
triangles e."iri-.aes forms get smaller he can get a sequence of
inscribed
triangles such that
(5) (413)AL-A>A^
II4 ALEXANDRIAN GEOMETRY AND TRIGONOMETRY
where A^ is the zth term of the sequence and geometrically represents the
sum of2'-1 triangles. But since by (4)
(6) Ar + A2+... + A^ + lA^ : !sA,,

then
4l
iA, - (4, + A2 +. '. a A^) : it^,
or
/-
(7) iA, - @, * Ac +...+ A^) < A^.
It follows from (5) and (7) that
(B) At+Az+"'+ A->A.
But a sum consisting ofinscribed triangles is always less than the area of the
segment. Hence (8) is impossible.
Of course, in effect Archimedes has summed an infinite geometric
progression, because when z becomes infinite in (4), An approaches 0, and
the sum of the infinite progression is 4Arl3.
The work of Archimedes on the mechanical and mathematical methods
of obtaining the area of a parabolic segment shows how clearly he dis-
tinguishes physical from mathematical reasoning. His rigor is far superior
to that which we shall find in the work of Newton and Leibniz.
In the work On Spirals Archimedes defines the spiral as follows. Suppose
a line (ray) rotates at a constant rate about one end while remaining in one
plane and a point starting from the fixed end moves out at a constant speed
along the line; then the point will describe a spiral. In our polar coordinates
the equation of the spiral is p : a6. As the curve is drawn in Figure 5.7,
d is a positive clockwise. The deepest result in the work is:
Proposition 24. The area bounded by the first turn of the spiral and the
initial line [the shaded area in the figure] is equal to one third of the first
circle.
The first circle is the circle with radius Ol, which equals 2zra, and so
the shaded area is t(2ra)213.
The proof is by the method of exhaustion. In preceding theorems, which
prepare the ground, the area of a region bounded by an arc of a spiral, the
arc BPQRC in Figure 5.8, and by two radii vectors OB and, OC, is enclosed
between two sets of circular sectors. Thus B!',Pq',Qr'r... arc arcs of
circles with center at O and likewise Pb, Qp, Rq,. . . are arcs of circles. The
circular sectors of the inscribed set are OBp', OPq', OQr',. . . and the circular
sectors of the circumscribed set are OPb, OQp, ORq,. . . . Thus circular
AREAS AND VOLUMBS IN THE WORI( OF ARCHIMEDES
I15
Figure 5.7
sectors replace inscribed and circumscribed polygons as the approximating

figures in the method of exhaustion. (We use such approximating figures in
th1 calculus when we determine areas in polar coordinates') The novel
feature in this application of the method of exhaustion is that Archimedes
chooses .maller arrd smaller circular sectors so that the difference between
the area under the arc of the spiral and the sum of the areas of the finite
number of..inscribed" circular sectors (and the sum of the areas ofthe finite
number of "circumscribed" circular sectors) can be made less than any given
magnitude. This manner of approximating the desired area is not the same
as;e>rhausting" it by adding more and more rectilinear figures' However'
in the last pari of the proof Archimedes uses the indirect method of proof as
he does in ihe work on the parabola and as Euclid does in his proofs by the
method of exhaustion. There is no explicit limit process'
Archimedes also gives the result for the area bounded by the arc of the
spiral after the radius vector has rotated twice completely around O1 and
tirere are other related results on area. Incidentally, later mathematicians
used the spiral to trisect an angle and in fact to divide an angle into any
number of equal Parts.
Figure 5.8
116 ALEXANDRIAN GEoMETRY AND TRIGoNoMETRY
It is at once apparent from a study ofthe geometrical work ofArchimedes

that he is concerned to obtain useful results on area and volume. This work
and his mathematical work in general are not spectacular as to conclusions
nor especially new in method or subject matter, but he tackles very difficult
and original problems. He often says that the suggestions for problems came
from reading the works ofhis predecessors; for example, the work ofEudoxus
on the pyramid, cone, and cylinder (given in Euclid's Elements) suggested to
Archimedes his work on the sphere and cylinder, and the problem ofsquaring
the circle suggested the quadrature of the parabolic segment. Archimedes'
work on hydrostatics, however, is entirely novel; and his work on mechanics
is new in that he gives mathematical demonstrations (Chap. 7, sec. 6). His
writing is elegant, ordered, finished, and to the point.
4. Areas and Volumes in the Work of Heron

Heron, who lived sometime between 100 a.c. and a.o. I00, is of great
interest not only from the standpoint of the history of mathematics but also
in exhibiting the characteristics of the Alexandrian period. Proclus refers to
Heron as mechanicus, which might mean a mechanical engineer today, and
discusses him in connection with the inventor Ctesibius, his teacher. Heron
was also a good surveyor.
The striking fact about Heron's work is his commingling of rigorous
mathematics and the approximate procedures and formulas of the Egyptians.
On the one hand, he wrote a commentary on Euclid, used the exact results
of Archimedes (indeed he refers to him often), and in original works proved
a number of new theorems of Euclidean geometry. On the other hand, he
was concerned with applied geometry and mechanics and gave all sorts of
approximate results without apology. He used Egyptian formulas freely and
much of his geometry was also Egyptian in character.
ln his Metri.ca and Geometrica, the latter known to us only through a book
based on his work, Heron gives theorems and rules for plane areas, surface
areas, and volumes ofa great number offigures. The theorems in these books
are not new. For figures with curved boundaries he uses Archimedes' results.
In addition he wrote Geodesy and. Stereornetry (calculation of volumes of
figures), both of which are concerned with the same subjects as the first
two books. In all of these works he is primarily interested in numerical
results,
In his Dioptra (theodolite), a treatise on geodesy, Heron shows how to
find the distance between two points of which only one is accessible and
between two points that are visible but not accessible, He also shows how to
draw a perpendicular from a given point to a line that cannot be reached and
how to find the area of a field without entering it. The formula for the area
SOME EXCEPTIONAL CURVES
tt7
of a triangle, credited to him though due to Archimedes, namely,
wherein a, b, and c are the sides and s is half the perimeter, illustrates the
and the formula
last-mentioned idea. This formula appears inhis Geoduy,
and a proof are in both the Dioptra and the Mctrica' ln the Dioptra he shows
how to dig a straight tunnel under a mountain by working simultaneously
from both ends.
Though many of the formulas are proven, Heron gives many without
proof and-also gives many approximate ones' -Thus he gives an inexact
i'o.-rlu for the area of a triangle along with the above correct one' One
reason that Heron gave many Egyptian formulas may be that the exact
ones involved square roots or cube roots and the surveyors could
not execute
these operations. In flact, there was a distinction between Pure geometry
.rd g.od".y or metrics. The calculation of areas and volumes belonged to
geode.y urril *u, not part of a liberal education' It was taught to surveyors'
irurorrr, carpenters, and other technicians' There is no doubt that Heron
continued and enriched the Egyptian science of field measurements; his
writings on geodesy were used for hundreds of years'
Hlron applied many of his theorems and rules to the design of theaters'
banquet halls, and baths. His applied works include Mechanics, Tlu Con'
struction of Catapulx, Measurements, The Design of Guns, Pneumatica
(the theory
and use Lf ,i. p...rr..), and On the Art of Construction of Automala' He gives
designs for water clocks, measuring instruments, automatic machines'
weight-lifting machines, and war engines.
5. Some ExcePtional Curaes

Though the classical Greeks did introduce and study some unusual curves'
such a"s the quadratrix, the dictate that geometry was to be devoted to figures
constructibl; with line and circle banished those curves to limbo' The
Alexandrians, however, felt freer to ignore the restriction; thus Archimedes
did not hesitate to introduce the spiral' A number of other curves were
introduced in the Alexandrian period.
Nicomedes (c. 200 n.c.) is known for his definition of the conchoid' He
starts with a point P and a line AB (Fig. 5.9)' He then chooses a length a
and lays this off on all rays from P that cross lB, the length a starting from
the point ofintersection ofthe ray and AB and in the direction away from P'
The endpoints so determined are the points of the conchoid' Thus Pr, Pz'
and P. of the figure are points of the conchoid'
Ii , is the perpendicular distance from P to AB and il the lengths a are
measured alonj the rays through p and starting lrom AB but in the direction
II8 ALEXANDRIAN CEOMETR,Y AND TR.IGONOMETRY
,'
Figurc 5.9
ofP we get three other curves according as a > b, a : b, and a < D. Hence
there are four types of conchoids, all due to Nicomedes. The modern polar
equation is r : a * b *c 0. Nicomedes used the curve to trisect an angle
and double the cube.l
Nicomedes is supposed to have invented a mechanism to construct the
conchoids. The nature of the mechanism is of far less interest than the fact
that mathematicians of the period were interested in devising them. The
conchoids of Nicomedes, together with the line and circle, are the oldest
mechanically constructible curves about which we possess satisfactory
information.
Diocles (end of2nd cent. a.c.), in his book On Burning-glasses, solved the
problem of doubling the cube by introducing the curve called the cissoid.
The curve is defined as follows: AB and CD are perpendicular diameters of a
circle (Fig. 5.10) and EB and, BZ are eqwaL arcs. Draw Zlf perpendicular to
CD and then draw ED. The intersection of ZH and, ED gives a point P on
the cissoid. For Diocles the cissoid is the locus of all points P determined by
all positions of E on arc BC and, Z on arc BD wfih arc BE : arc BZ. Ore
\,
H\
o
,Z
F\- /
B
I
Figure 5.10 I
l. The method of trisection is given in T. L. Heath: Tlu Thirtccn Books of Fl.ulid'sBlerrle*s,

Dover (reprint), 1956, Vol. l, p. 266,
II9
THE CREATION OF TRIGONOMETT.Y
can prove that

CHIHZ = HZ:HD: HD:HP.
ThusHZandHDaretwomeanProportionalsbetweenCHand'IIP.This
solves the Delian problem. The equation of the cissoid in rectangular co-
ordinates is y'(a i x) : (a - x)3, where O is the origin, a the radius of
the
This equation includes the
circle, and bb OA the coordinate axes.
""a'
brokenJine portions of the curve shown in the figure, which were not
considered by Diocles.
6. The Creation of TrigononetrY

Entirely new in the Alexandrian Greek quantitative geometry was trigo-
,omet.y, a creation of Hipparchus, Menelaus, and Ptolemy' This work rvas
motivaied by the desire to britd a quantitative astronomy that could be
used to predict the paths and positioni ofthe heavenly bodies and to
aid the
telling oi time, calendar-reckoning, navigation, and geography'
ih" a.igorro*"try of the Aleiandrian Greeks is what we call spherical
trigonometry though, as we shall see, the essentials of plane trigonometry
*e'r" ulro involved. Spherical trigonometry PresuPposes spherical Seometry'-
for example the propirties of great circles and spherical triangles' much of
which was already known; it had been investigated alt soon as astronomy
became mathemaiical, during the time of the later Pythagoreans' Euclid's
Phaenomena, itself based on earlier work, contains some spherical
geom:ql'
Many of its theorems were intended to deal with the apparent motion of the^
stars. Theodosius (c. 20 a.c') collected the then available Lnowledge of
spherical geometry in his Sphazricaz, but his work rras not numerical and so
could notle used to handle the fundamental problem of Greck astronomy'

namely, to teU time at night by observation of the stars'
T'he founder of trigonomeiry is Hipparchus, who lived in Rhodes and
Alexandria and died about 125 s.c. we know rather little about him. Most
of what we do know comes from Ptolemy, who credits Hipparchus with a
number of ideas in trigonometry and astronomy' We owe to him many
astronomical observations and discoveries, the most influential astronomical
theory ofancient times (Chap' 7, sec' 4), and works on geography' Only one
*o"k ty Hipparchus, his Commentary on ,fra Phaenomena oJ Eudons and Arahs'
i, p..r"*"d.'Geminus of Rhodes wrote an introduction to astronomy that
*. do hor", and it contains a description of Hipparchus' work on the sun'
Hipparchus' method of approaching trigonometry, as described and
usedby.Ptol.my,isthefollowirrg.Thecircumferenceofacircleisdivided
into 36b', a. wa. first dore by Hypsicles of Alexandria (c' I50 a'c') in his b-ook
On the Risings oJ tlw Stars and by the Babylonians of the last centuries
before
Figure 5.1
Christ, and a diameter is divided into 120 parts. Each part of the circum-
ference and diameter is further divided into 60 parts and each of these into
60 more, and so on according to the Babylonian system of sexagesimal
fractions. Then for a given arc l-B of some number of degrees, Hipparchus-
in a book, now lost, on chords in a circle-gives the number of units in the
corresponding chord AB. Just how he calculated these will be described in
the discussion of Ptolemy's work, which presents their combined thoughts
and results.
The number of units in the chord corresponding to an arc of a given
number of degrees is equivalent to the modern sine function. If 2cr is the
central angle of arc AB (Fig. 5.1l), then for us sin cr : ACIOA, whereas,
instead of sin a, Hipparchus gives the number of units in 2.AC when the
radius Oz4 contains 60 units. For example, if the chord of2a is 40 units, then
for us sin a : 20160, or, more generally,
(s) sin a : $.| "r,*a

," : hchord 2cc.
Greek trigonometry reached a high point with Menelaus (r. e.o. 9B).
I{is work, but apparently he also wrote Chords in a Circle
Sphazrica is his chief
in six books, and a treatise on the setting (or rising) of arcs of the zodiac.
The Arabs attribute additional works to him.
The Sphacrica, extant in an Arab version, is in three books. In the first
book, on spherical geometry, we find the concept of a spherical triangle,
that is, the figure formed by three arcs ofgreat circles on a sphere, each arc
being less than a semicircle. The object of the book is to prove theorems for
spherical triangles analogous to what Euclid proved for plane triangles.
Thus the sum of two sides ofa spherical triangle is greater than the third side
and the sum of the angles of a triangle is greater than two right angles.
Equal sides subtend equal angles. Then Menelaus proves the theorem that
has no analogue in plane triangles, namely, that ifthe angles ofone spherical
triangle equal respectively the angles ofanother, the triangles are congruent.
He also has other congruence theorems and theorems about isosceles triangles.
THE CREATION OF TRIGONOMETRY
The second book of Menel aus' Sphaerica is chiefly about astronomy and
only indirectly concerned with spherical geometry' The third book contains
some sphericai trigonometry and bases the development on the first
theorem
of the iook, which supposes that we have a spherical triangle ABC (Fig' 5 '12)
and any great circle cutting the sides of the triangle (produced where
,"""rr.ry;l To state the theorem we shall use our modern sine notion, but
fo. Merr.iars the sine of an arc such as lB (or the sine of the corresponding
central angle at the center of the sphere) is replaced by the chord ofdouble
the arc AB,In terms of our sines, then, Menelaus' theorem says
sin P1-4'sin P2B'sin PrC : sin P1C'sin PrA'sin PsB'
The proof of this theorem rests upon the corresponding theorem for plane
trianlles, which we still call Menelaus' theorem' For plane triangles the
theorem states (Fig. 5.13) :
PLA' PzB' PBC : PtC' PzA' PsB'
Menelaus does not prove the plane theorem' One may conclude that it was
already known or perhaps proved by Menelaus in an earlier writing'
The second theorem oiBook III, in the notation that arc a lies opposite
angleAintriangleABC,statesthatifABCandA'B'C'aretwospherical
and, if i:
triingles A' andC: C', or C is suPPlementary to C', then
sin r : sin c'
ii"-, ii-"a'
Theorem 5 of Book III uses a Property of arcs that was presumably
known by Menelaus' time, namely (Fig' 5'14), if four great circular atcs
emanatefromapointOand'ABCDandA'B'C'D'aregreatcirclescutting
the four, then
sir, AD sir. BC sirt A'D' sin B'C'
,LB: og''':j-1"l'Y'
iJ[-J-lr'
-sin.DC'-sin
ALEXANDRIAN CEOMETRY AND TRIGONOMETRY
Figurc 5.14
We shall find that an expression corresponding to the left or right member

reappears under the concept of anharmonic ratio or cross ratio in the work
of Pappus and in later work on projective geometry. Many more theorems
on spherical trigonometry are due to Menelaus,
The development of Greek trigonometry and its application to astronomy
culminated in the work of the Egyptian Claudius Ptolemy (d. a.o. 168), who
was a member at least of the royal family of mathematicians though not of
the royal house of Egypt. Ptolemy lived in Alexandria and worked at the
Museum.
ln his Syntaxis Mathcmati.ca or Matlumatical Collection (the work was
referred to by the Arabs as Megale Sgntaxis, Megiste, and finally Almagest),
Ptolemy presents the continuation and completion of the work of Hipparchus
and Menelaus in trigonometry and astronomy. Astronomy and trigonometry
are commingled in the thirteen books of the Almagest, though Book I is
largely on spherical trigonometry and the others are devoted largely to
astronomy, which will be discussed in Chapter 7.
Ptolemy's Almagest is thoroughly mathematical, except where he uses
Aristotelian physics to refute the heliocentric hypothesis, which Aristarchus
had suggested. He says that since only mathematical knowledge, approached
inquiringly, will give its practitioners trustworthy knowledge, he was led to
cultivate as far as lay in his power this theoretical discipline. Ptolemy also
says he wishes to base his astronomy "on the incontrovertible ways of
arithmetic and geometry."
In Chapter IX of Book I Ptolemy begins by calculating the chords of
arcs of a circle, thereby extending the work of Hipparchus and Menelaus.
As already noted, the circumference is divided into 360 parts or units (he
does not use the word "degree") and the diameter into 120 units. Then he
proposes, given an arc containing a given number of the 360 units, to find
the Iength of the chord expressed in terms of the number of units which a
full diameter contains, that is, 120 units.
He begins with the calculation of the chords of 36o and 72o arcs. In
Figure 5. 15 ADC is a diameter of a circle with center D and BD is perpen-
dicular to ADC. E is the midpoint of DC and F is chosen so that EF -- BE.
Ptolemy proves geometrically that FD equals a side of the regular inscribed
r23
Figure 5.15 Eigure 5.1
decagon arrd BF, a side of the regular inscribed Pentagon' But 'ED contains-
SO u-nits and 8D,60 units. Since EBz : EDz + BDz, EBz: 4500 and
BP :67 4'55" (which means 67 + 4/60 + 55/603 units)' 11o" f,f : EB
and so he knows .OF. Then FD : EF - DE : 67 4'55' - 30 : 37 4'55''
Since FD equals the side ofthe decagon, it is the chord ofthe 36' arc' Hence
he knows the chord of this arc. By using FD and the right triangle trDB'
he can calculate BF. Itis 7032'3'. But BFis the side of the pentagon' Hence
he has the chord of the 72o arc.
Of course for the side of a regular hexagon, since it equals the radius'
he has at once that the chord of length 60 belongs to the arc of length 60'
Also, since the side of the inscribed square is immediately calculable in tcrsrs
of the radius, he has the chord of 90'' It is 84 51'10'' Further, since the
side of the inscribed equilateral triangle is also immediately calculable
in
terms of the radius, he gets that the chord of 120' is 103 55'23''
By using the right triangle ABC (Fig.5.16) on the diameter 'tlC one can
im-eji.t.ly-get the chord of the s..ppletentary arc AB rf orre knows the
chord of thi irc BC. Thus, since Ptolemy knows the chord of 36o he can find
tlre chord of 144', which turns out to be ll4 7'37''
The relationship established here is equivalent to sin3 A + corz A
: I
where z4 is ary acute angle. This can be seen as follows' Ptolemy has proved
that ifS is any arc less than 180" then
(chord,S)2 * chord (lB0 - S)' : (120)3'
But by (9) above
(chord S)2 : (l20)'3 sin'

f'
IIence
(120)2 sin2
f * ltzo;',i"' (199/)
: rzo'
t24 ALEXANDRIAN GEOMETRY AND TRIGONOMETRY
ligurc 5,
sin'f + sin' (so - ;) : ,,

that is,
sin'f +
"o.'f: t.
Now Ptolemy proves what he calls a lemma but which is known today
as Ptolemy's theorem. Given any quadrilateral inscribed in a circle (Fig.
5.17), he proves that AC.BD: AB.DC + AD.BC. The proof is straight-
forward. He then takes the special quadrilateral ABCD in which AD is a
diameter (Fig.5.lB). Suppose we know lB and AC. Ptolemy now shows how
to find BC. BD is the chord of the supplement of arc AB and CD is the chord
of tlre supplement of arc AC.lf one now applies the lemma, he sees that five
of the six lengths involved in it are known and so the sixth length, which in
this case is BC, can be calculated. But arc BC : arc AC - arc AB. Hence we
can calculate the chord ofthe difference of two arcs if their chords are known.
In modern terms this means that if we know sin z4 and sin B we can calculate
sin (l - B). Ptolemy points out that, since he knows the chords of 72" and
60o, he can calculate the chord of l2'.
Ife shows next how, given any chord in a circle, he can find the chord of
half the arc of the given chord. In modern terms this means finding sin l/2
from sin 24. This result is powerful, as Ptolemy points out, because we can
start with an arc whose chord is known and find the chords of successive
halves ofthis arc. He also shows that if one knows the chords ofarcs AB and
BC, then one can find the chord of arc lC. In modern terms, this result is the
formula for sin (A + B) , As a special case, he points out that we can calculate,
in modern terms, sin 2.,4 from sin ,4.
Since Ptolemy can get the chord of3/4" from the chord of 12' by halving,
he can add this arc of3/4" or subtract it from any arc whose chord is known;
r25
and by using the above theorems, he can calculate the chord of the sum or
difference oithe two arcs. Thus he is in a position to calculate the chords of
all arcs in steps of 314'. However, he wants to obtain the chords of arcs in
steps of I /2.. frere he is stuck and resorts to clever reasoning with
inequalities.
The approximate result is that the chord of ll2" : 0 31'25"
ti" ir rro* in a position to make up a table of the chords ofarcs for arcs
diflering by 112", from 0'to 180'. This is the first trigonometric table'
Tt"err Ptole-y proceeds (Chapter XI of Book I) to solve astronomical
problems that call for finding arcs ofgreat circles on asphere' These arcs are
,id", of spherical triangles, some of whose Parts are known through either
observation or prior cJculation. To determine the unknown arcs Ptolemy
proves relationships that are theorems of spherical trigonometry some of
*hi"h fr"d already been proved in Book III of Menelaus' Sphaerica' Ptolemy's
basic method is to use Menelaus' theorem for spherical triangles. Thus he
proves, in our notation, that in the spherical triangle with right angle at C
lfig. S.tS; and with arc a denoting the side opposite angle A,
sina: sin c sin ..4
tar, d -- sin D tan z4
,::'; H::::x
=
of course for Ptolemy the various trigonometric functions are chords of arcs.
To treat oblique spherical uiangles, he breaks them uP into right-angled
spherical triat gles. There is no systematic Presentation of spherical trigo-
,ro-"t.y; h. f.o',res just those theorems that he needs to solve specific
astronomical Problems.
The Atmigest put trigonometry into the definitive form it retained for
over a thousanl y.u.r. Wi generally speak of this trigonomery as spherical'
butthedistinctionbetweenplaneandsphericaltrigonometryreallyhaslittle
point in assessing Ptolemy's material. Ptolemy certainly works with spherical
iriangles, but inlaving calculated the chords ofarcs, he has really given the
theorletical basis for plane trigonometry. For by knowing sin 24, and, in effect'
cos r4 for arry A ftom 0" to 90o, one can solve plane triangles'
We should note that trigonometry was created for use in astronomy;
and, because spherical trigonometry was for this purpose the more useful
126 ALEXANDRIAN GEOMETRY AND TRIGONOMETRY
tool, it was the first to be developed. The use of plane trigonometry in

indirect measurement and in surveying is foreign to Greek mathematics.
This may seem strange to us, but historically it is readily understandable,
since astronomy was the major concern of the Greek mathematicians.
Surveying did come to the fore in the Alexandrian period; but a mathe-
matician such as Heron, who was interested in surveying and would have
been capable of developing plane trigonometry, contented himself with
applying Euclidean geometry. The uneducated surveyors were not in a
position to create the necessary trigonometry.
7. Late Ahxandian Actiaity in Geometry

Mathematical activity in general, and in geometry in particular, declined in
Alexandria from about the beginning of the Christian era. We shall look
into possible reasons for the decline in Chapter B. What we know about the
geometrical work of the early Christian era comes from the major com-
mentators Pappus, Theon ofAlexandria (end of 4th cent. a.o.), and Proclus.
On the whole, very few original theorems were discovered in this period,
The geometers seem to have occupied themselves primarily with the study
and elucidation of the works of the great mathematicians who preceded
them. They supplied proofs that the original authors had omitted, either
because the proofs were regarded as easy enough to be left to the readers or
bccause they were given in treatises that had been lost. These proofs,
incidentally, were called lemmas, in an older use of the word.
Both Theon and Pappus report on the work of Zenodorus who lived
sometime between 200 g.c. and a.o. 100. Apparently Zenodorus wrote a
book on isoperimetric figures, that is, figures with equal perimeters, and in
it proved the following theorems :
I. Among z-sided polygons of the same perimeter the regular one has most
atea.
2. Among regular polygons of equal perimeter, the one having more sides
has greater area.
3. The circle has greater area than a regular polygon of the same perimeter.
4. Of all solids with the same surface the sphere has the greatest volume.
The subject of the theorems, which today we would describe as maxima
and minima problems, was novel in Greek mathematics.
Late in the Alexandrian period, Pappus' additions to geometry came

as a sort of anticlimax. The eight books of his Mathematical Collection contain
some original material. Pappus' new work was not of the highest order but
some of it is worthy of note.
127
Figure 5.20
Book V gives the proofs, results, and extensions of Zenodorus' work on

the areas bounded by curves of equal perimeter. Pappus added the theorem
that of all segments of a circle having the same perimeter the semicircle has
the greatest area. He also proves that the sphere has more volume than any
cone, cylinder, or regular polyhedron with the same surface area.
Proposition 129 of Book VII is a special case of the theorem that the
cross ratio (Fig. 5.20)
AB
ADICD
I!9
is the same fcr every transversal cutting the four lines emanating from O'
Pappus requires that all the transversals Pass through /.
Proposition 130 states, in our language, that if five of the points in
which the six sides of a complete quadrilateral (the four sides and the two
diagonals) meet a straight line are fixed, then the sixth one is also fixed'
Thus if ABCD (Fig.5.2l) is the quadrilateral the six points in which its
six sides meet an arbitrary straight line .Ei( are E, F, G, H, J, and K. If five
of these are fixed, the sixth is also. Pappus notes that these six points satisS
the condition
EK IJK EK IGK
EElfr:EldF'
Figure 5.21
r28 ALEXANDRIAN GEOMETRY AND TRIGONOME TRY
This condition states that the cross ratio determined by E, K, J, and H

equals the cross ratio determined by E, K, G, and F. The condition is
equivalent to one we shall find introduced by Desargues, who calls six such
points " points of an involution."
Proposition I 3l of Book VII amounts to the statement that in each
quadrilateral a diagonal is cut harmonically by the other diagonal and by
the line joining the points of intersection of the pairs of opposite sides. Thus
ABCD is a quadrilateral (Fig. 5.22) ; CA is a diagonal ; Cl is cut by the other
diagonal BD and. by FIl which joins the intersection of AD and BC to the
intersection of AB and CD. Then the points C, E, A, and G in the figure
form a harmonic set; that is, E divides lC internally in the same ratio that
G divides lC externally.
Proposition 139 of Book VII gives what is still called Pappus' theorem.
lf A, B, and C are three points on a line (Fig. 5.23) and A', B', and C' are
three points on another, then AB' and A'8, BC' and. B'C, and. AC' and, A'C
meet in three points that lie on one straight line.
One of the last lemmas, Proposition 238, establishes a fundamental
property of all conic sections: The locus ofall points whose distances from a
fixed point (focus) and a fixed line (directrix) are in a constant ratio is
a conic.section. This basic property of the conics is not in Apollonius'
Conir Sections, but, as noted in the preceding chapter, Euclid probably
knew it.
In the introduction to Book VII Pappus restates Apollonius' assertion
that his methods enable one to find the locus of points the product ofwhose
distances from two lines equals a constant times the product of its distances
from two other lines. Pappus knows but does not prove that the locus is a
conic. He also points out that the problem can be generalized to include five,
six, or more lines. We shall say more about this problem in connection with
Descartes's work.
LATE ALEXANDRIAN ACTI\ITY IN CEOMETRY I29
Book VIII is of special interest in that it is mainly on mechanics, which,

in accordance with the Alexandrian outlook, is regarded as part of mathe-
matics. In fact, Pappus prefaces the book with this contention. He cites
Archimedes, Heron, and lesser known figures as the leaders in mathematical
mechanics. The center ofgravity ofa body is defined as the point within the
body (it need not be within) such that if the body is suspended from that
point it will remain at rest in any position in which it is put. He then explains
mathematical methods for determining the point. He also treats the subject
of moving a body along an inclined plane and attemPts to compare the
force required to slide the body along a horizontal plane with that needed to
slide it up the inclined plane.
Book VtI also contains a famous theorem sometimes called Pappus'
theorem and sometimes Guldin's theorem because Paul Guldin (157 7 -1643)
rediscovered it independently. The theorem states that the volume generated
by the complete revolution of a plane closed curve that lies wholly on one
side of the aiis of revolution equals the area bounded by the curve multiplied
by the circumference of the circle traversed by the center of gravity' The
result is a very general one and Pappus was aware of this. He does not give
a proof of the theorem and it is very likely that the theorem and proof were
known before his time.
As lar as geometry is concerned, the Alexandrian period ends with the
works of a number of commentators. Theon of Alexandria wrote a com-
mentary on Ptolemy's Almagest and new editions of Euclid's Elements ar^d
Optics. lHis daughter Hypatia (d. 415), a learned mathematician' wrote
commentaries on Diophantus and Apollonius.
Proclus Diadochus, whom we have often mentioned, wrote a com-
mentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements (Chap. 3, sec. 2). This commentary
is important because Proclus had access to works now lost, including the
Histu;y 0f Geomelry by Eudemus and the book of Geminus that was probably
titled the Doctrine or the Theorg of Matlwmatics.
Proclus received his education in Alexandria and then went to Athens,
where he became head of Plato's Academy. He was a foremost neo-Platonist
and wrote many books on Plato's work and on philosophy generally; his
interests included poetry as well as mathematics. Like Plato he believed that
mathematics is a handmaiden to philosophy. It is a propaedeutic because it
clears the eye of the soul, removing the impediments that the senses place in
the way of knowing universals'
There was another, nonmathematical side to Proclus, who accepted
many myths and religious mysteries and was a devout worshiper of Greek
and oriental divinities. Ptolemaic theory he rejected because a chaldean
" whom it is not lawful to disbelieve" thought otherwise. It has been remarked
that it was fortunate for Proclus that the Chaldean oracles did not contradict
or deny Euclid.
t3o ALEXANDRTAN GEOMETRY AND TRIGONOMETRY
Among many other commentators we shall mention just a few.

Simplicius, a commentator on Aristotle, studied at Alexandria and at Plato's
Academy, and went to Persia when Justinian closed down the Academy in
A.D. 529. He repeated material from Eudemus' Historg, including a long
extract on Antiphon's attempt to square the circle and on Hippocrates'
quadrature of lunes. Isidorus of Miletus (6th cent. e.o.), who seems to have
had a school in Constantinople (which had become the capital ofthe Eastern
Roman Empire and the center of some mathematical activity), wrote com-
mentaries and may have written part of the fifteenth book of Eu clid's Elcments.
Eutocius (6th cent. l.o.), probably a pupil of Isidorus, wrote a commentary
on Archimedes' work.
Bibliography
Aaboe, Asger : Episodcs Jrom thc Early History of Matlumatics , Random Houre,
1964, Chaps. 3-4.
Bdl, W. W. R.: ..{ Shoil Accowrt ol tlu Histary of Matlumati.cs, Dover (reprint),
1960, Chaps.,s.{.
Cajori, Florian: A H;sW of Mathematics, Macmillan, 1919, pp. 29-52.
Dijlsterhuis, E. J.: Archbncdes (English trans.), Ejnar Munksgaard, 1956,
Heath, Thomas L.: A Hisbry of Grcck Mathtmatics, Oxlord University Press, 1921,
VoI.2, Chaps. 13, 15, 17-19,21.
Tlu Worles of Archimcdcs, Dover (reprint), 1953.
Pappns d'Alexatdie: La Collcction mathimati.que , ed. Paul Ver Eecke, 2 vols., Albert
Blanchard, 1933.
Parsons, Edward Alexander: Thc Ahxandrian Library, The Elsevier Press, 1952.
Sarton, George z A Histuy of Scitncc, Harvard University Press, 1959, Vol. 2,
Chaps. l-3, 5, 18.
Scott, J. F,z A History of Matlumatics, Taylor and Francis, 1958, Chaps. 3-4.
Smith, David Eugene: History of Mathematbs, Dover (reprint), 1958, Vol, l,
Chap.4; Vol.2, Chaps. S and 10.
vau der Waerden, B. L.: Scbnce Awakcning, P. Noordhoff, 1954, Chaps. 7-8.
6
The Alexandrian Period:
The Reemergence of
Arithmetic and Algebra
Wherever there is number, there is beauty.
PR()cLUS
l. The Symbols and Operations of Greek Ari.thmetu

Let us go back for a moment to pick up the threads of arithmetic in the
classical period. The classical Greeks called the art of calculation logirthai
they reserved the word alithmetira for the theory of numbers. The classical
mathematicians scorned logistira becatse it was concerned with the practical
calculations needed in the trades and commerce. We, however, shall consider
both togistica and, arithmctica in order to see u/hat the Alexandrian Greels had
at their disposal.
The classical Greek art of writing and working with numbers did not
continue where the Babylonians left off. In logistica t}lre Greeks seem to have
fashioned their own beginnings. Archaic Greek numerals found in Crete
antedate the classical period by about five hundred years. There are no
noteworthy features in this scheme, just particular number symbols for 1,2,
3, 4, L0,200, 1000, and so forth. Very early in the classical period the
Greeks introduced other special symbols for numbers, and used some form
of an abacus for calculation. Later, about 500 n.c., they used the Attic
system, of which the earliest known occurrence is an inscription of 450 s.c.
The Attic system used strokes for the numbers from I to 4; II, the first letter
of penta, and later F were used for 5; A frorn ihka was l0; H frort lukaton
represented 100; X from chitioi stood for 1000; and M from zynbi represented
10,000. Combinations of these special symbols produced the in-between
numbers. Thus Fl :6; Fa :50; Fu :500; AFlll : 18.
flowever, no one knows how early classical mathematicians-for
example, the Pythagoreans-wrote numbers. They may have used pebbles
to calculate, for the word " calculus " means "pebble." The original Greek
I3I
I32 ALEXANDRIAN ARITHMETIC AND ALGEBRA
meaning of " abacus " was " sand," which suggests that before the intro-
duction of the abacus, and probably afterward, they drew numbers as dots
in sand. In the three hundred years from Thales to Euclid the mathe-
maticians paid no attention to computation, and this art made no progress.
It is significant that the books do not tell us about the practice of arithmetic.
For some unknown reason the classical Greeks changed their way of
writing numbers to the Ionic or Alexandrian system, which uses letters of
the alphabet. This alphabetic system was the most common one in Alex-
andrian Greek mathematics and is found, in particular, in Ptolemy's
Almagest. It was used also in ancient Syria and Israel.
The details of the Greek system are as follows :
ap y6€r( q0
t2 34567 8.9
LKI pvg ona
l0 20 30 40 50 60 70 B0 90
porttdx ,ltoT
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
The intermediate numbers were written by combining the above symbols.

Thus rc : 11, rF : 12, *o: 21, and pU : 153. The symbols for 6, 90,
and 900 and the symbol M from the Attic system were not in the then-
current Greek alphabet; the first three, now called stigma (or digamma),
koppa, and sampi, belonged to an older alphabet that the Greeks had taken
over from the Phoenicians (who did not, however, use letters for numbers).
From the fact that these older letters were used it is inferred that this system
of writing numbers dates back as far as 800 g.c. and probably came from
Miletus in Asia Minor.
For numbers larger than 1000 the alphabet was repeated, but a stroke
was placed before the letter to avoid confusion. Also, horizontal lines were
drawn over numbers to distinguish them from words. Thus,
,-ure : 1305.
Various Greek writers used minor variations of the above scheme and of
schemes given below.
Greek papyri of the first part of the Alexandrial p4"d (first three
centuries B.c.) contain symbols for zero such as 0-10, 0,- 0-, and
-0-. .Iih.
zero ofthe Greek Alexandrian period was used, as was the zero ofthe Seleucid
Babylonian period, to indicate missing numbers. According to Byzantine
manuscripts, which are all we have of Ptolemyts work, he used 0 for zero
both in the middle and at the end of a number.
Archimedes' Sand-Reckoner presented a scheme for writing very large
numbers. He sought to show that he could write a number as large as the
THE SYMBOLS AND OPERATIONS OF CREEK ARITHMETIC I33
number of grains of sand in the universe. He takes the largest number then
expressed in Greek numerals, that is 108, a myriad myriads, and uses it as
the starting point of a new series of numbers that goes up to 108 x 108 or
1016. Then he uses 1016 as a new starting point for a series of numbers that
goes from 1016 to 1024, and so forth. He next estimates the number of grains
of sand in the universe and shows it is less than the largest number he can
express. What is important in this work of Archimedes is not a practical
scheme for actually writing any large number, but the thought that one can
construct indefinitely large numbers' Apollonius had a similar scheme'
The arithmetic operations, with the whole numbers written as described
above, were like ours. Thus in adding, the Greeks wrote the numbers one
below the other to form a unit column, tens column, and so forth, added the
numbers in each column, and carried from one column to the other' These
methods are a great step forward, compared with the Egyptian ones' The
latter, however, were also taught by the Alexandrian Greeks.
As for fractions, there was the special symbol , L' for l/2. Thus (some-
times with one accent), aL' ara vL' :3|' S-til
: ll, Ur' :Z),
fractions were denoted by writing the numerator marked with an accent,
then the denominator written once or twice, each time with two accents'
Thus ry'xT"xT' : 13129. Diophantus often wrote the denominator above
the numerator.
The Egyptian scheme of writing fractions whose numerators are
larger than I as a sum of unit fractions is also found. Thus H.,ot' *ito ffi
wel fi ."a other

^ i + i #*,but gives as such
;* #
expressions for the same fraction. He also "f
uses the above Greek form'
Ptolemy likewise writes soma fractions like the Egyptians, for exa-ple, fi as
The plus sign was always understood, and of course letters of

; ++ +
the Greek alphabet were used where we use numerals.
Common fractions written in the Greek or Egyptian system were too
awkward for astronomical calculations. Ilence the Alexandrian Greek
asEonomers adopted the Babylonian sexagesimal fractions. Just when this
practice began is not known, but it is used in Ptolemy's Almagest. Thus when
Ptolemy writes 31 25 he means !1r, . #, Ptolemy says that he used sexa-
gesimal fractions to avoid the difficulty of ordinary fractions. He wrote whole

numbers in the decimal base but not in positional notation. However, large
whole numbers occur so rarely in his astronomical calculations that one may
say he used sexagesimal positional notation. The use of the sexagesimal
134 ALEXANDRIAN ARITHMETIC AND ALGEBRA
system of place value for fractions and of the nonpositional alphabetic

numerals for whole numbers seems peculiar and irrational. Yet we write
130'15',17".5.
As the above discussion implies, the Alexandrians used fractions as
numbers in their own right, whereas the mathematicians of the classical
period spoke only ofa ratio ofintegers, not ofparts ofa whole and the ratios
were used only in proportions. However, even in the classical period genuine
fractions, that is, fractions as entities in their own right, were used in com-
merce. In the Alexandrian period, Archimedes, Heron, Diophantus, and
others used fractions freely and performed operations with them. Though,
as far as the records show, they did not discuss the concept of fractions,
apparently these were intuitively sufficiently clear to be accepted and used.
The square-root operation, though considered in classical Greece, was
in effect bypassed there. There are indications in Plato's writings that the
Pythagoreans approximated /2 by using 49125 for 2, thus obtain ing 715.
Likewise, Theodorus probably approximated y'3 by using 49/16 for 3,
obtaining 714.The irrational number as such had no mathematical status in
classical Greece.
The next information we have on the Greek handling of roots comes from
Archimedes. ln his Measarement of a Circlc he seeks primarily to find a good
approximation to zr, that is, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter
of a circle; in the course of the work he operates with large whole numbers
and fractions, He also obtains an excellent approximation to y'5, namely,
l35l 265
76>v5>69'
but does not explain how he got this result. Among the many conjectures in
the historical literature concerning its derivation the following is very
plausible. Given a number l, if one writes it as a2 1 D where a2 is the rational
square nearest to l, larger or smaller, and D is the remainder, then
b_h
ot;>{a2+b>otuL+1.
Several applications of this procedure do produce Archimedes' result. To
obtain thb approximation to zr, Archimedes first proves, in Proposition l,
that the area of a circle is equal to the area ofa right triangle whose base is
as long as the circumference of the circle and whose altitude equals the
radius. He must now find the circumference. This he approximates more
and more closely by using inscribed and circumscribed regular polygons
and calculates the perimeters of these polygons. His result for zr is
sfr.. . s|.
ARITTIMETIC AND ALGEBRA AS AN INDEPENDBNT DEVELOPMENT I35
Apollonius, too, wrote a book on the quadrature of the circle, called

Okyhkion (The Rapid Delivery), in which he is supposed to have improved
on Archimedes' determination of z by using better arithmetic methods. This
is the only book in which Apollonius departs from classical Greek mathe-
matics.
Heron approximates square roots frequently by means of
\/V:\/7-rb-at!,
-2a
where a and D have the meaning explained above. He gets this approximation
by starting with the approximation o : (c * Alc)12, whete c is any guess as

to l/V; if one writes A as a2 * & and chooses c: a, tlrrer o.: a * bl2a.
fleron also improves on c by finding a1 : (o + Ala)12, Clearly the closer cz
is to t/2, the better the approximation c1 will be. Heron's basic orpression
for c was also used by the Babylonians.
In later Alexandrian times the square root process uses, as ours does,
the principle of (a * b)a : a' + 2ab + b2. The successive approxirnations
ari obtained by trial, always keeping the square of the approximation
obtained less than the number whose root is desired. Explaining Ptolemy's
use of this method, Theon points out that a geometrical figure is used to aid
the thinking; this is the figure used in Euclid's Elemcnts,Book II, Proposition 4
and is the geometrical way of stating (a + b)2. Thus Ptolemy gives
/-.\ 55 /r\ 23
lo3
60\,i602\'i604
for {5, which amounts to 1.7320509 and is correct to six decimal places.
2, Arithmetic and Algebra as an Independcnt Dcaehpnatt

We have been reviewing the methods of doing arithmetic employed by the
Greeks in both periods but more especially in the Alexandrian period when
the geometry and trigonometry became quantitative. But the major develop'
ment with which this chapter is concerned is the rise of arithmetic and
algebra as subjects ind.cpendrnt of geometry' The arithmetical work of Archi-
medes, Apollonius, and Ptolemy was a steP in this direction, but they used
arithmetic to calculate geometric quantities. One might infer that the
numbers were meaningful to them because they rePresented geometric
magnitudes and the logic ofthe operations was guaranteed by the geometrical
algebra. But there is no question that Heron, Nichomachus (c. e.o. lfi)),
who was probably an Arabian from Gerasa in Judea, and Diophantus (c.
e'.o. 250),a Greek of Alexandria, did treat arithmetical and algebraic
problems in and for themselves and did not depend uPon geometry either for
motivation or to bolster the logic.
136 ALEXANDRIAN ARITHMETIC AND ALGEBRA
More significant than Heron's arithmetical work of finding square and

cube roots is the fact that he formulated and solved algebraic problems by
purely arithmetic procedures. He did not use any special symbols ; the
account is verbal. For example, he treats the problem: Given a square such
that the sum of its area and perimeter is 896 feet, find the side. The problem,
in our notation, is to find r satisfying x2 + 4z: 896. Heron completes the
square by adding 4 to both sides and takes the square root. He does not
prove but merely describes what operations to perform. There are many
such problems in his work. Of course this is precisely the old Egyptian and
Babylonian style of presentation, and there is no doubt that Heron took
much material from the ancient Egyptian and Babylonian texts. There, we
may remember, algebra was independent of geometry and, as for }Ieron, an
extension of arithmetic.
In his Geometrica, Heron speaks of addin g an area, a circumference, and
a diameter. In using such words he means, of course, that he wants to add
their numerical values. Likewise, when he says that he multiplies a square
by a square, he means that he is finding the product ofthe numerical values.
Ileron also translated much of the Greek geometrical algebra into arithmetic
and algebraic processes.
This work of Heron (as well as his use of approximate Egyptian areir
and volume formulas) is sometimes evaluated as the beginning of the decline
of Greek geometry. f t is more fitting to regard it as a Hellenized improve-
ment on Babylonian and Egyptian mathematics. When Heron adds areas
and line segments, he is not misapplying classical Greek geometry but merely
continuing the practice of the Babylonians, for whom area and length were
just words for certain arithmetic unknowns.
More remarkable from the standpoint of the reemergence of an inde-
pendent arithmetic is the work of Nichomachus, who wrote the Introductio
Arithmetica in two books. It was the first sizable book in which arithmetic (in
the sense of the theory of numbers) was treated entirely independently of
geometry. Historically its importance for arithmetic is comparable to Euclid's
Eletnents for geometry. Not only was this book itself studied, referred to, and
copied by dozens of later writers, but it is known to be typical of many
books by other authors of the same period and so reflects the interests of the
times. Numbers stood for quantities of objects and were no longer visualized
as line segments as in Euclid. Nichomachus uses words throughout, whereas
Euclid used a letter, such as A, or two letters such as BC-referring, in the
second case, to a line segment-to speak about numbers. Hence Nicho-
machus' phrasing is clumsier. He treats only whole numbers and ratios of
whole numbers
Nichomachus was a Pythagorean; and though the Pythagorean tra-
dition was not dead, he reanimated it. Of the four subjects stressed by Plato-
arithmetic, geor.netry, music, and astronomy-Nichomachus says arithmetic
ARITHMETIC AND ALGEBRA AS AN INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT 137
is the mother of the others. This, he maintains is
not solely because we said that it existed before all the others in the mind
ofthe creating God like some universal and exemplary plan, relying upon
which as a design and archetypal example the creator ofthe universe sets
in order his material creations and makes them attain to their proPer ends;
but also because it is naturally prior in birth. . ..
Arithmetic, he continues, is essential to all the other sciences because they

could not exist without it. However, if the other sciences were abolished,
arithmetic would still exist.
The essence of the Introductio is the arithmetical work of the early
Pythagoreans. Nichomachus treats even and odd, square, rectangular' and
polygonal numbers, He treats also prime and composite numbers and paral-
ielopipedal numbers (of the form n2 (n * 1)) and defines many other kinds'
He gives the multiplication table for numbers from I to 9 precisely as we
learn it.
Nichomachus repeats many Pythagorean statements, such as that the
sum of two consecutive triangular numbers is a square number, and con-
versely. He goes beyond the Pythagoreans in seeing, though not proving,
general relations. Thus he asserts that the (z - I ) st triangular number added
io the zth *-gonal number gives the zth (,t + l)-gonal number' For example,
the (z - l)st triangular number added to the ath square number gives the
zth pentagonal number. In our symbols,
++n,:;(32-r).
Also the zth triangular number, the zth square number, the nth Pentagonal
number, and so on form an arithmetic progression with the (z - I)st
triangular number as the common difference.
He discovered the following proposition: If one writes down the odd
numbers
1,3,5,7,9, 11, 13, 15, 17,...
then the first is the cube of 1, the sum of the next two is the cube of 2, the
sum ofthe next three is the cube of3, and so on. There are other propositions
on progressions.
Nichomachus gives four perfect numbers, 6, 28, 496, and Bl2B, and
repeats Euclid,s formula for perfect numbers. He classifies all sorts of ratios,
including m * l:m,2m + nim I n, and mn * l:n, and gives them names'
These were important for music'
He also studies proportion, which, he says, is very necessary for " natural
science, music, spherical trigonometry and planimetry and particularly for
I38 ALEXANDRIAN ARTTHMETIC AND ALGEBRA
the study of the ancient mathematicians." He gives many types of proportion,

among them the musical proportion
a+b
ot--T- 2ab
o+0
The Introductio also gives the sieve of Eratosthenes (about whom we
shall say more in Chapter 7); it is a method of obtaining prime numbers
quickly. One writes down all the odd numbers from 3 on as far as one
wishes, then crosses out all multiples of 3, that is to say every third number
after 3. Next one crosses out all multiples of 5, or every fifth number after 5,
counting any that may have been crossed out before. Then every seventh
number alter 7, and so forth. No crossed-out number can be the starting
point of a new crossing-out process. The number 2 must now be included
with those that are not crossed out. These numbers are the primes.
Nichomachus always uses specific numbers to discuss various categories
and proportions. The examples illustrate and explain what he asserts but
there is no support for any general assertions beyond the examples. He does
not prove deductively.
The Introductio had value because it was a systematic, orderly, clear, and
comprehensive presentation ofthe arithmetic ofintegers and ratios ofintegers
freed of geometry, It was not original as far as ideas were concerned, but was
a very useful compilation. It also incorporated speculative, aesthetic, mystical,
and moral properties of numbers, but no practical applications . The Intro-
duttio wx the standard text in arithmetic for a thousand years. At Alexandria,
from the time of Nichomachus, arithmetic rather than geometry became the
favorite study.
At this time, too, algebra came to the fore. Books of problems appeared
that were solved by algebraic techniques. Some of these problems were
exactly those that appeared in Babylonian texts of2000 r.c. or in the Rhind
papyrus. This Greek algebraic work was written in verbal form; no symbolism
was used. Also, no proofs of the procedures were given. From the time of
Nichomachus onward, problems leading to equations were a common form
of puzzle. Between fifty and sixty of these are preserved in the Palatine
Codex of Greek Epigrams (l0th cent. .1,.o.). At least thirty of them are
attributed to Metrodorus (c. e..o. 500), but are surely older. One is the
Archimedes cattle problem, which calls for finding the number of bulls and
cows of different colors subject to given information. Another is due to
Euclid and involves a mule and a donkey carrying corn. Another calls for
the time required for pipes to fill a cistern. There were also age problems
such as appear in our algebra texts.
The highest point of Alexandrian Greek algebra is reached with Dio-
phantus. We know almost nothing about his origins or life; he was probably
ARITIIMETIC AND ALCEBRA AS AN INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENI I39
Greek. One of the algebraic problems found in a Greek collection gives the
following facts about his life: His boyhood lasted 1/6 of his life; his beard
grew after l/12 more; he married after ll7 more I and his son was born 5
years later. The son lived to half of his father's age and the father died 4
years after the son. The problem is to find how long Diophantus lived' The
answer is easily found to be 84. His work towers above that of his con-
temporaries; unfortunately, it came too late to be highly influential in his
time because a destructive tide was already engulfing the civilization.
Diophantus wrote several bools that are lost in their entirety. Part ofa
tract On Polygonal Numbers is known, in which he states and proves theorems
in the deductive manner of Books VII, VIII, and IX of t};.e Elemmts; how-
ever, the theorems are not striking. His great work is the Atithmetica which,
Diophantus says, comprises thirteen books. We have six, which come from
a thirteenth-century manuscript that is a Greek copy of an older one and
from later versions.
The Arithmetica, Iike the Rhind papyrus, is a collection of separate
problems. The dedication says it was written as a series of exercises to help
one of his students learn the subject. One of Diophantus' major steps is the
introduction of symbolism in algebra. Since we do not have the manuscript
written by him but only much later ones, we do not know the precise
symbols. It is believed that the symbol he used for the unknown was s,
which served as our .r. This s may have been the same letter as the Greek o
when used at the end of a word, as in dtpfilis (arithmos), and may have
been chosen because it was not a number in the Greek system of using
letters for numbers. Diophantus called the unknown "the number of &e
problem." For our x2 Diophantus used AY, the A being the first letter of
itivay.rs (dghamrs, "power"). xs is KY; the K is from niBos (c:abos). z' is
AYA; *5 is AKY; .rB is KYK. In this system KY is not clearly the cube of s as
our *3 is of x. For Diophantus sr : llx. He also uses namel for these various
powers, e.g. number for r, square for *2, cube for .r3, square-square
(dynamodynamis) for *a, square-cube for *5, and cubocube for x6.'
The appearance of such symbolism is of course remarkable but the use
of powers higher than three is even more extraordinary. The classical Greels
could not and would not consider a product of more than three factors
because such a product had no geometrical significance. On a purely
arithmetic basis, however, such products do have a meaning; and this is
precisely the basis Diophantus adopts.
Addition is indicated in Diophantus by putting terms alongside one
another. Thus
A"rMrB means .r2.3 + 12.
2. Some modern authors usc 6, K, and n for A, K, and Y.

I4O ALEXANDRIAN ARITIIMETIC AND ALGEBRA
The Ift is a symbol for unity and indicates that a pure number not involving
the unknown follows. Again
aYasBfiT means *2 * x.2 + 3,
For subtraction he uses the symbol lh . Thus for xB - Sxa I f - 3x - 2

he writes
KYxaAYa- A AYA€srl\tp,
putting all the negative terms after the positive ones. There are no symbols
for addition, multiplication, or division as operations. The symbol ro is used
(at least in the extant versions of the Arithrnetira) to denote equality. The
coefficients of the algebraic expressions are specific numbers; there are no
symbols for general coefficients. Because he does use some symbolism,
Diophantus' algebra has been called syncopated, whereas that of the
Egyptians, the Babylonians, Heron, and Nichomachus is called rhetorical.
Diophantus writes out his solutions in a continuous text, as we write
prose. His execution ofthe operations is entirely arithmetical; that is, there
is no appeal to geometry to illustrate or substantiate his assertions. Thus
(.r - l)(r - 2) i, carried out algebraically as we do it. He also applies
algebraic identities such as
(*)'-(,-l1',:oo
to expressions such as x * 2 for p and r * 3 for q' That is, he makes steps
that use the identities but the identities themselves do not appear.
The first book of the Arithmetie a consists mainly of problems that lead to
determinate equations of the first degree in one or more unknowns. The
remaining five books treat mainly indeterminate equations ofsecond degree.
But this segregation is not sharply adhered to. In the case ofthe determinate
equations (i.e. equations leading to unique solutions) with more than one
unknown involved, he uses given information to eliminate all but one
unknown and, at worst, ends with quadratics of the form ax2 : D. Thus
Problem 27 of Book I states: Find two numbers such that their sum is 20
and product is 96. Diophantus proceeds thus: Given sum 20, given product
96, 2r the difference of the required numbers. Therefore the numbers are
l0 + *, l0 - x. Hence 100 - x2 :96. Then r : 2 and the required
numbers are 12, B.
The most striking feature of Diophantus' algebra is his solution of
indeterminate equations. Such equations had been considered before, as for
example in the Pythagorean work on solutions of x2 + g2 : 22, in the
Archimedean cattle problem, which leads to seven equations in eight
unknowns (plus two supplementary conditions), and in other odd writings.
Diophantus, however, pursues indeterminate equations extensively and is
ARITHMETIC AND ALGEBRA AS AN INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT I4I
the founder of this branch of algebra now called, in fact, Diophantine

analysis
He solves linear equations in two unknowns, e.g'
x+g-5:O.
In such equations he gives a value to one unknown and then solves for a
positive rational value of the other. He recognizes that the value assigned to
ihe first unknown is merely typical. (In modern Diophantine analysis one
seeks integral solutions only.) Very little is done with this type of equation,
and the work is hardly significant since positive rational solutions are obtain-
able at once.
He then solves quadratic equations in two unknowns, of which the most
general type is (in our notation)
(1) !2:A*z*BxiC.
Diophantus does not wtite 92 but says that the quadratic expression must
. square number (square ofa rational number). He considers (l) for
"qril
spicial values of A, B, and C and treats these types in separate cases' For
.*u-pI", when C is absent he lets y : mxln, where m and n are specffic
whole numbers, obtains
t--2 -tt D- fr'
rilL -,
')* --7^,
and then cancels r and solves. When ..4 and C do not vanish but A : az,he
assumes y : ax - m. lf C: c3 he assumes y : (m" - c). In all cases n isa
specific number.
He also treats the case of simultaneous quadratics, namely,
(2) lz:Ax2+BxlC
(3) z2:Dxz*ExlF-
Here, too, he undertakes only particular cases, that is, where .,{, B, ' . ', F are
special numbers or satisfy special conditions, and his method is to assume
expressions lor y and z in terms ofx and then solve for x.
In effect he is solving determinate equations in one unknown' He
realizes, however, that in choosing expressions fory and zin (2) and' (3) and
fory in (l), he is giving merely typical solutions and that the values assigned
to y and z are somewhat arbitrarY'
He also has problems in which cubic and higher degree expressions in *
must equal a square number, e.g.
Axs + Bxz *Cx I d2:!2'
Here he lets y :mx * d and fixes m so that the coefficient of r vanishes'
Since the d2 terms cancel and he can then divide through by x2, he obtains
I42 ALEXANDRIAN ARITHMETIC AND ALGEBRA
a first degree equation in t. There are also special cases of a quadratic in x

equaling yo,
All his quadratics in * reduce to the types
atz : bx, ax': b, ax, +bx:c, ax2 1-c:bx, axz:b**c,
and he solves each of these types. Only one cubic in x, of no significance, is
solved.
The above equations show the tgpcs of problems Diophantus solves.
The actual wording of the problems is illustrated by the following examples:
Book I, Problem 8. To divide a given square number into two squares.
Here he takes 16 as the given square number and obtains 256125 and
144/25. This is the problem which Fermat generalized and which led to his
assertion that .r' + !^ : z^ is not solvable for m > 2.
Book II, Problem 9. To divide a given number which is a sum of two squares
into two other squares.
He takes 13 or 4 + 9 as the given number and obtains 324125 and l/25.
Book III, Problem 6. To find three numbers such that their sum and the
sum of any two is a square,
Diophantus gives 80, 320, and 4l as the three numbers.
Book IV, Problem L To divide a given number into two cubes such that
the sum of their sides is a given number.
With the given number of 370 and the given sum of the sides as 10, he
finds 343 and.27. The sides are the cube roots of the cubes.
Book IV, Problem 29. To express a given number as the sum offour squares
plus the sum of their sides.
Given the number l2 he finds l2l/100,49/100, 361/100, 169/100 as the
four squares; their sides are the square root of each square,
In Book VI Diophantus solves a number of problems involving the
(rational) sides ofa right-angled triangle. The use ofthe geomerrical language
is incidental even where the term area occurs. He seeks rational numbers a,
D, and c such that a2 + D2 : c2 and subject to some other condition. Thus the
first problem is to find a (rational) right-angled triangle such that the
hypotenuse minus each of the sides gives a cube. In this case he happens to
obtain the integral answers 40, 96, 104. However, in general he gets rational
answers.
Diophantus shows great skill in reducing equations of various types to
forms he can handle. We do not know how he arrived at his methods. Since
he makes no appeal to geometry, it is not likely that he translated Euclid's
methods for solving quadratics. Moreover, indeterminate problems are not
in Euclid and as a class are new with Diophantus. Because we lack informa-
ARTTEMETIC AND ALGEBRA AS AN INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT 143
tion on the continuity of thought in the later Alexandrian period, we cannot

find traces of Diophantus, work in his predecessors. As far as we can tell, his
work in pure algebra is remarkably diflerent from past work'
He accepts only positive rational roots and ignores all others' Even
when a quadratic equation has two positive roots he gives only one, the
larger one. When an equation' as it is being solved, clearly leads to two
neg;tive or imaginary roots he rejects the equation and says it is not solvable.
Irr-the c..e ofirrational roots, he retraces his steps and shows how by altering
the equation he can get a new one that has rational roots. Here Diophantus
differs from Heron and Archimedes. Heron was a surveyor and the geo-
metrical quantities he,sought could be irrational. Hence he accePted them,
though of-course he approximated them to obtain a useful value. Archimedes
also sought exact answers, and when they were irational he obtained
inequalities to bound the irrational. Diophantus is a pure algebraist; and
since algebra in his time did not recognize irrational, negative, and complex
nu*bers, he rejected equations with such solutions' It is, however, worthy of
note that fractions for Diophantus are numbers, rather than just a ratio of
two whole numbers.
He has no general methods. Each of the I 89 problems in the Arithmctica is
solved by a diflerent method. There are more than 50 different types of
problems but no attempt is made to classifr them by type' His methods are
closer to the Babylonian ones than to those of his Greek predecessors, and
there are indications of Babylonian influences. In fact, he does solve some
problems just as the Babylonians did. But it has not been established that
ih"." *., urry direct connection between Diophantus' work and Babylonian
algebra. His advance in algebra over the Babylonians consists in the use of
,y*bolir* and the solution of indeterminate equations' In determinate
equations he went no further than they did, but his Aithmetba assimilated
logistica, which Plato, among others, had banned from mathematics'
Diophantus' variety of methods for the separate problems dazzles rather
than delights. He was a shrewd and clever virtuoso but apparently not deeP
enough to see the essence of his methods and thereby attain generality' (It is
still true that Diophantine analysis is a maze of separate problems.) Unlike
a speculative thinker who seeks general ideas, Diophantus sought only
correct answers. There are a few results that might be called general, such
as that no prime number of the form 4n * 3 carr be the sum of two squares'
Euler did credit Diophantus with illustrating general methods that he could
not display as such b."urrr" he did not have literal coefficients' And therc
are others who credit Diophantus with recognizing that his material belonged
to an abstract and basic science. But this view is not shared by all. His work
as a whole, however, is a monument in algebra.
An element of mathematics that is of enormous imPortance today, which
was missing in Greek algebra, is the use of letters to rePresent a class of
T44 ALEXANDRIAN ARITIIMETIC AND ALGEBRA
numbers, as, for example, coemcients in equations. Aristotle did use letters of
the Greek alphabet to indicate an arbitrary time or an arbitrary distance
and in discussions of motion employed such phrases as " the half of 8."
Euclid, too, used letters for classes of numbers in Books VII to IX of the
Eletnents, a practice that Pappus followed. However, there was no recognition
of the enormous contribution that letters could make in increasing the
eflectiveness and generality of algebraic methodology.
Another feature of Alexandrian algebra is the absence of any explicit
deductive structure. The various types of numbers-whole numbers, frac-
tions, and irrationals-were certainly not defined. Nor was there any axio-
matic basis on which a deductive structure could be erected. The work of
Heron, Nichomachus, and Diophantus, and of Archimedes as far as his
arithmetic is concerned, reads like the procedural texts of the Egyptians and
Babylonians, which tell us how to do things. The deductive, orderly proofof
Euclid and Apollonius, and of Archimedes' geometry is gone. The problems
are inductive in spirit, in that they show methods for concrete problems that
presumably apply to general classes whose extent is not specified. In view of
the fact that as a consequence of the work of the classical Greeks mathe-
matical results were supposed to be derived deductively from an explicit
axiomatic basis, the emergence of an independent arithmetic and algebra
with no logical structure of its own raised what became one of the great
problems of the history of mathematics. This approach to arithmetic and
algebra is the clearest indication of the Egyptian and Babylonian influences
in the Alexandrian world. Though the Alexandrian Greek algebraists did
not seem to be concerned about this deficiency, we shall find that it did
trouble deeply the European mathematicians.
Bibliography
Ball, W. W. R,: ,t{ Short Account oJ thc History of Mathematics, Dover (reprint), 1960,
Chaps. 5 and 7.
Cajori, Florian: A History of Mathemalics, Macmillan, 1919, pp. 52-62.
Heath, Thomas L.: Diaphanlus of Alexandria, Dover (reprint), 1964,
Tlu Works of Archinudes, Dover (reprint), 1953, Chaps. 4 and 6 of the
fnroduction, pp. 9l-98, 319-326.
A History of Greek Mathematits, Oxford University Press, 1921, Vol. l,
Chaps. 1-3; Vol. 2, Chap.20.
A Manual of Grcek Mathematics, Dover (reprint), 1963, Chaps. 2-3, and 17.
D'Ooge, Martin Luther: Nichomachus of Gaasa, University of Michigan Press, 1938.
van der Waerden, B. L.: Sciencc Awakening, P. Noordhofl 1954, pp. 278-86.
7
The Greek Rationalization
of Nature
Mathematics is the gate and key of the sciences.
ROGER BACON
l. The Inspirationfor Greek Mathematics

Unfortunately, except for occasional hints, the Greek classics' such as
Euclid's Elements, Apollonius' Conic Sections, and the geometrical worlrl 9f
Archimedes, gi*re ,o indication of why these authors investigated their
subjects. They"give only the formal, polished deductive mathematics'
In this
resiect, the Greek texts are no different from modern mathematics textbools
and treatises. Such books seek only to organize and present the mathematical
results that have been attained and so omit the motivations for the mathe-
matics, the clues and suggestions for the theorems, and the uses to which the
mathematical knowledge is Put.
TounderstandwhytheGreekscreatedsomuchvitalmathematics'one
mustinvestigatetheirobjectives.Itwastheurgentandirrepressibledesire
of the Greeks to understand the physical world that impelled them to create
and value mathematics. Mathematics was Part and parcel of the investiga-
tion of nature and the key to comprehension of the universe, for mathe-
matical laws are the essence of its design.
What evidence do we have that this was the role of mathematics ? It is
difficult to demonstrate that any one theorem or body ol theorems was
created for a specific purPose because we do not have enough information
about the Greek mathematicians. Ptolemy's direct statement that he created
trigonometry for astronomy is an exception' Flowtver when one finds that
E.to*r, was primarily an astronomer and that Euclid wrote not just the
as applied-
Elements but ttre Phaenomena (a work on the Beometry of the sphere
to the motion of the sphere of stars), the Optics and' Catoptrica, the Elemmts of
Music, and small works on mechanics, all of which were mathematical' one
cannot escape the conclusion that mathematics was more than an isolated
discipline.i(rro*ing how the human mind works and knowing in great
t45
146 THE GREEK RATToNALTZATToN oF NATURE
detail how men such as Euler and Gauss worked, we may be fairly certain
that the investigations in astronomy, optics, and music must have suggested
mathematical problems, and it is most likely that the motivation for the
mathematics was its application to these other areas. It is also relevant that
the geometry of the sphere, known in Greek times as "sphaeric," was studied
just as soon as astronomy became mathematical, which happened even
before Eudoxus' time. The word " sphaeric " meant " astronomy " to the
Pythagoreans.
Fortunately the inferences we may draw from the works of the mathe-
maticians, though reasonable enough, are established beyond doubt by the
overwhelming evidence in the writings of the Greek philosophers, many of
whom were also prominent mathematicians, and of the Greek scientists. The
bounds of mathematics were not mathematics proper. In the classical period
mathematics comprised arithmetic, ggometry, astronomy, and music; and
in the Alexandrian period, as we have already noted in Chapter 5, the
divisions of the mathematical sciences were arithmetic (theory of numbers),
geometry, mechanics, astronomy, optics, geodesy, canonic (musical har-
mony), and logistics (applied arithmetic).
2. Tlu Beginnings of a Rational View of Nature

The civilizations that preceded the Greek or were contemporary with it
regarded nature as chaotic, mysterious, capricious, and terrifying. The
happenings in'nature were manipulated by gods. Prayers and magic might
induce the gods to be kind and even to perforrn miracles but the life and fate
of man were entirely subject to their will.
From the time our knowledge of Greek civilization and culture begins
to be reasonably definite and specific, that is, from about 600 n.c., we find
among the intellectuals a totally new attitude toward nature: rational,
critical, and secular. Mythology was discarded, as was the belief that the
gods manipulate man and the physical world according to their whims.
The new doctrine holds that nature is orderly and functions invariably
according to a plan. Moreover, the conviction is manifest that the human
mind is powerful and even supreme; not only can the ways of nature be
learned by man, but he can even predict the occurrences.
It is true that the rational approach was entertained only by the intel-
lectuals, a small group in both the classical and Alexandrian periods. Whereas
these men opposed the attribution of events to gods and demons and defied
the mysteries and terrors of nature, people in general tvere deeply religious
and believed that the gods controlled all events. They accepted mystical
doctrines and superstitions as credulously as did the Egyptians and the
Babylonians. In lact Greek mythology was vast and highly developed.
The Ionians began the task of determining the nature of reality, We
THE BELIEF IN MATHEMATTCAL DESIGN I47
shall not describe the qualitative theories of Thales, Anaxagoras, and their
colleagues, each of whom fixed on a single substance persisting through aII
uppu..rrt change. The underlying identity of this prime substance is con-
served but all forms of matter can be explained in terms of it, This natural
philosophy of the lonians was a series of bold speculations, shrewd guesses'
and brilliant intuitions rather than the outcome of extensive and careful
scientific investigations. They were perhaps a little too ea8er to see the whole
picture and so naively jumped to broad conclusions. But they did substitute
material and objective explanations ofthe structure and design ofthe universe
for the older mythical stories. They offered a reasoned approach in place of
the fanciful and uncritical accounts of the poets and they defended their
contentions by reason. At least these men dared to tackle the universe with
their minds and refused to rely upon gods, spirits, ghosts, devils, angels, and
other mythical agents.
3. The Deaelopment of the Belief in Mathematical Deign

The decisive step in removing the mystery, mysticism, and arbitrariness
from the workings of nature and in reducing the seeming chaos to an under-
standable ordered pattern was the application of mathematics. The first
major group to offer a rational and mathematical philosophy of nature were
the pyihagoreans. They did draw some inspiration from the mystical side of
Greek religion; their religious doctrines centered about the purification of
the soul and its redemption from the taint and prison of the body' The
members lived simply and devoted themselves to the study of philosophy,
science, and mathematics' New members were pledged to secrecy at least
as to religious beliefs and required to join up for life. Membership in the
community was oPen to men and women.
The Pythagoreans' religious thinking was undoubtedly mystical, but
their natural philosophy was decidedly rational. They were struck by the
fact that phenomena that are most diverse from a qualitative point of view
exhibit identical mathematical properties. Hence, mathematical ProPerties
must be the essence of these phenomena. More specifically, the Pythagoreans
found this essence in number and in numerical relationships' Number was
their first principle in the explanation ofnature. All objects were made up of
points or " units of existence " in combinations corresponding to the various
geometrical figures. Since they thought of numbers both as points and as
.l"r.r.rt..y particles of matter, number was the matter and form of the
universe and the cause of every phenomenon. Hence the Pythagorean
doctrine "All things are numbers." Says Philolaus, a famous fifth-century
Pythagorean, " Were it not for number and its nature, nothing that exists
would be clear to anybody either in itself or in its relation to other things' ' ' '
you can observe the power of number exercising itself not only in the afliairs
I48 THE GREEK RATIoNALIZATIoN oF NATURE
of demons and gods but in all the acts and the thoughts of men, in all
handicrafts and music."
The reduction of music, for example, to simple relationships among
numbers became possible for the Pythagoreans when they discovered two
facts: first, that the sound caused by a plucked string depends upon the
Iength of the string; and second, that harmonious sounds are given off by
equally taut strings whose lengths are to each other as the ratios of whole
numbers. For example, a harmonious sound is produced by plucking two
equally taut strings, one twice as long as the other. In our language, the
interval between the two notes is an octave. Another harmonious combina-
tion is formed by two strings whose lengths are in the ratio 3 to 2; in this case
the shorter one gives forth a note called the fifth above that given off by the
first string. In fact, the relative lengths in every harmonious combination of
plucked strings can be expressed as ratios ofwhole numbers. The Pythagoreans
also developed a famous Greek musical scale, Though we shall not devote
space to the music of the Greek period, we note that many Greek mathe-
maticians, including Euclid and Ptolemy, wrote on the subject, especially on
harmonious combinations of sounds and the construction of scales.
The Pythagoreans reduced the motions of the planets to number
.relations. They
believed that bodies moving in space produce sounds; per-
haps this was suggested by the swishing ofan object whirled on the end ofa
string. They believed, further, that a rapidly moving body gives forth a
higher note than one that moves slowly. Now according to their astronomy
the greater the distance of a planet from the earth the more rapidly it
moved. Hence the sounds produced by the planets, which we do not hear
because we are accustomed to them from birth, varied with their distances
from the earth and all harmonized. But since this "music of the spheres,,,
like all harmony, reduced to no more than number relationships, so did the
motions of the planets.
The Pythagoreans and probably Pythagoras himself wanted notjust to
observe and describe the heavenly motions but to find regularity in them.
The idea of uniform circular motion, seemingly obvious in the case of the
moon and sun, suggested that all the planetary motions were explainable in
terms of uniform circular motions. The later Pythagoreans made a more
striking break with tradition; they were the first to believe that the earth was
spherical. Moreover, because l0 was their ideal number, they decided that
the moving bodies in'the heavens must be l0 in number. First, there was a
central fire around which the heavenly bodies, including the earth, moved.
They knew five planets in addition to the earth. These six bodies, the sun,
the moon, and the sphere to which the stars were attached made only 9
moving bodies. Hence they asserted the existence ofa tenth one, called the
counter-earth, which also revolved around the central fire. We cannot see
this tenth one because it moves at exactly the same speed as the earth on the
THE BELIEF IN MATHEMATICAL DESIGN 149
opposite side of the central fire and also because the inhabited part of earth
faces away from the central fire. Here we have the first theory to put the earth
in motion. However, the Pythagoreans did not assert the rotation of the
earth; rather, the sphere of fixed stars revolves about the center ofthe
universe.
The belief that the celestial bodies are eternal, divine, perfect, and
unchangeable and that the sublunar bodies, that is the earth and (according
to the Greeks) the comets, are subject to change, decomposition, decay, and
death may also have come from the Pythagoreans. The docrine of uniform
circular motion and the distinction between celestial and sublunar bodies
became embedded in Greek thought'
Other features of nature also "reduced" to number. The numbers l, 2,
3, and 4, the tetractys, were especially valued because they added up to 10'
In fact the Pythagorean oath is reported to have been: " I swear in the name
ofthe Tetractys which has been bestowed on our soul. The source and roots
of the everflowing nature are contained in it." The Pythagoreans asserted
that nature was composed of fournesses; for example, point, line, surface,
and solid, and the four elements, earth, air, fire, and water' The four
elements were also central in Plato's natural philosophy' Because 10 was
ideal, l0 represented the universe. The ideality of l0 required that the
whole universe be describable in terms of 10 categories ofopposites: odd and
even, bounded and unbounded, good and evil, right and left, one and many,
male and female, straight and curved, square and oblong, Iight and darkness,
and rest and motion.
Clearly, Pythagorean philosophy mingled serious thoughts with what
we would consider fanciful, useless, and unscientific doctrines' Their obses-
sion with the importance of numbers resulted in a natural philosophy that
certainly had little correspondence with nature. But they did stress the under-
standing of nature, not, like the Ionians, through a single substance, but
through the formal structure of number relationships. Moreover they and the
Ionians both saw that underlying mere sense data there must be a harmoni-
ous account of nature.
We can now see why the discovery of incommensurable lengths was so
disastrous to Pythagorean philosophy: a ratio of incommensurable lengths
could not be expressed as a ratio ol whole numbers. In addition, they had
believed that a line is made up of a finite number of points (which they
identified with physical particles) ; but this could not be the case for a length
such as l/2. Their philosophy, based on the primariness of the whole
numbers, would have been shattered if they had accepted irrationals as
numbers.
Because the Pythagoreans "reduced" astronomy and music to number,
these subjects came to be linked to arithmetic and geometry; these four were
regarded as the mathematical subjects. They became and remained part ol
I5O THE GREEK RATIONALIZATION OF NATURE
the school curriculum even into medieval times, when they were called,
collectively, "the quadrivium." As we have noted, the Pythagorean interest
in arithmetic (i.e. the theory of numbers) was due not to the purely aesthetic
value ofthat subject but to a search for the meaning ofnatural phenomena in
numerical terms ; and this value caused the emphasis on special proportions
and on triangular, square, pentagonal, and higher forms into which numbers
could be arranged. Further, it was the Pythagorean natural philosophy
centering about number that gave the subject importance with such men as
Nichomachus. In fact, modern science adheres to the Pythagorean emphasis
on number-though, as we shall see, in a much more sophisticated form-
while the purely aesthetic modern theory of numbers derives from Pythag-
orean arithmetic per se.
The philosophers who came chronologically between the Pythagoreans
and Plato were equally concerned with the nature of reality but did not
involve mathematics directly. The arguments and views of men such as
Parmenides (5th cent. a.c.), Zeno (5th cent. a.c.), Empedocles (c.484-c.424
a.c.), Leucippus (c. 44O r.c.), and Democritus (c. 460-c.370 r.c.) were, like
tlose of their Ionian predecessors, qualitative. They made broad assertions
about reality that were, at best, barely suggested by observation. Neverthe-
less, each affirmed that nature is intelligible and that reality can be grasped
by thought. Each was a link in the chain that led to the mathematical
investigation of nature. Leucippus and Democritus are notable because they
were the most explicit in affirming the doctrine of atomism. Their common
philosophy was that the world is composed of an infinite number of simple,
eternal atoms. These differ in shape, size, order, and position, but every
object is some combination of these atoms. Though geometrical magnitudes
are infinitely divisible, the atoms are ultimate indivisible particles. (The
word atom in Greek means indivisible.) Hardness, shape, and size are physi-
cally real properties of the atoms. All other properties, such as taste, heat, and
color are not in the atoms but in the perceiver I thus sensuous knowledge is
unreliable because it varies with the perceiver. Like the Pythagoreans, the
atomists asserted that the reality underlying the constantly changing diversity
of the physical world was expressible in terms of mathematics and, moreover,
that the happenings in this world were shictly determined by mathematical
laws.
Plato, the foremost Pythagorean next to Pythagoras, was the most
influential propagator of the doctrine that the reality and intelligibility of
the physical world can be comprehended only through mathematics. For
him there was no question that the world was mathematically designed, for
" God eternally geometrizes." The world perceived by the senses is confused
and deceptive and in any case imperfect and impermanent. Physical knowl-
edge is unimportant, because material objects change and decay; thus the
direct study of nature and purely physical investigations are worthless. The
THE BELIEF IN MATHEMATICAL DESIGN I5I
physical world is but an imperfect copy of the ideal world, the one that
Lathematicians and philosophers should study. Mathematical laws, eternal
and unchanging, are the essence of reality.
Plato went further than the Pythagoreans in wishing not merely to
understand nature through mathematics but to substitute mathematics for
nature itself. He believed that a few penetrating glances at the physical world
would supply some basic truths with which reason could then carry on
unaided. From that point there would be no nature, just mathematics, which
would substitute for physical investigations as it does in geometry'
Plato's attitude toward astronomy illustrates his position on the knowl-
edge to be sought. This science is not concerned with the movements of the
visible heavenly bodies. The arrangement ofthe stars in the heavens and their
apparent movements are indeed wonderful and beautiful to behold, but mere
observation and explanation of the motions fall far short of true astronomy'
Before we can attain to the latter we " must leave the heavens alone, " for
true astronomy deals with the laws of motion of true stars in a mathematical
heaven of which the visible heaven is but an imperfect expression' Plato
encourages devotion to a theoretical astronomy, whose problems please the
mind, not the eye, and whose objects are apprehended by the mind, not
visually. The varied figures that the sky presents to the eye are to be us€d
only as diagrams to assist the search for the higher truths. The uscs of
astionomy in navigation, calendar-reckoning, and the measurement of time
were alien to Plato.
Plato's views on the role of mathematics in astronomy are an intcgral
part ofhis philosophy, which held that there is an objective, universally valid
ieality consisting of forms or ideas. These realities were independent ofhuman
beings and were immutable, eternal, and timeless. We become aware of
these ideas through recollection or anamnesis I although they are pr€sent in
the soul, it must be stimulated to recall them or fetch them up from its
depths. These ideas are the only reality. Included among them but occuPytng
Lr."" rank are mathematical ideas, which are regarded as interrnediate
"between the sensible world and such higher ideas as goodness, truth, justice,
and beauty. In this comprehensive philosophy, mathematical ideas played a
double role; not only were they part of reality themselves but, as we have
already pointed out in Chapter 3, they helped train the mind to view eternal
ideas. As Plato put it in Book YII of Tlu Rtpublir, the study of geomery
made easier the vision of the idea of goodness: " Geometry will draw the
soul toward truth, and create the spirit of philosoPhy. . . ."
Aristotle, while deriving many ideas from his teacher Plato, had a quite
diflerent concept of the study of the real world and ofthe relation of mathe-
matics to reality. He criticized Plato's otherworldliness and his reduction of
science to mathematics. Aristotle was a physicist; he believed in material
things as the primary substance and source of reality. Physics and science
I52 TIIE GREEK RATIONALIZATION OF NATURE
generally must study the physical world to obtain truths; genuine knowledge
is obtained from sense experience by intuition and abstraction. Then reason
can be applied to the knowledge so obtained.
Matter alone is not significant. As such it is indeterminate, simply the
potentiality of form; matter becomes significant when it is organized into
various forms. Form and the changes in matter that give rise to new forms
are the interesting features of reality and the real concern of science.
According to Aristotle matter is not, as some earlier Greeks believed,
composed of one primitive substance. The matter r,ve see and touch is com-
posed of four basic elements: earth, \ /ater, fire, and air. Also, each element
has its own characteristic qualities. Earth is cold and dry; water is cold and
moist; air is hot and moist; and fire is hot and dry. Hence the qualities of
any given object depend upon the proportions ofthe elements that enter into
it; and thereby solidity, hardness, coarseness, and other qualities are
determined,
The four elements have other qualities. Earth and water have gravity;
air and fire have levity. Gravity causes an element to seek to be at rest at the
center ofthe earth; levity causes it to seek the heavens. Thus by knowing the
proportions of the elements that enter into a given object, one can also
determine its motion,
Aristotle regarded solids, fluids, and gases as three different types of
matter, distinguished by the possession ofdifferent substantial qualities. The
transition from solid to fluid, for example, meant the loss of one quality and
the substitution ol another. Thus changing mercury into rigid gold involved
taking from mercury the substance that possessed fluidity and substituting
some other substance.
Science also had to consider the causes of change. For Aristotle there
were four types of causes. The first was the material or immanent cause; for a
statue made of bronze, bronze is the immanent cause. The second was the
formal cause; for the statue it is the design or shape. The formal cause of
harmony is the pattern of 2 to I in the octave. The third cause was the
eflective cause, the agent or doer; the artist and his chisel are the effective
cause of the statue. The fourth was the final cause, or the purpose that the
phenomenon served; the statue serves to please people, to offer beauty.
Final cause was the most important of the four because it gave the ultimate
reasons for events or phenomena. Everything had a final cause.
Where was mathematics in this scheme of things ? The physical sciences
were fundamental to the study of nature, and mathematics helped by
describing formal properties such as shape and quantity. It also provided
explanations of facts observed in material phenomena. Thus geometry
provided the reasons for facts provided by optics and astronomy, and arith-
metical proportions could give the reasons for harmony. But mathematics
was definitely an abstraction from the real world, since mathematical objects
TIIE BELIEF IN MA.I'I{EMATICAL DESIGN I53
are not independent of or prior to experience. They exist in human minds

as a class of ideas mediating between the sensible objects themselves and the
essence ofobjects. Because they are abstracted from the physical world, they
are applicabie to it; but they have no reality apart from visible and tangible
things. Mathematics alone can never provide an adequate definition of
srrbsi.rr"e. Qualitative differences, as among colors, cannot be reduced to
differences in geometry. Hence in the study of causes, mathematics can
provide at besisome knowledge of the formal cause-that is, a description.
it can describe what happens in the physical world, can correlate con-
comitant variations, but can say nothing about the efficient and final causes
of movement or change. Thus Aristotle distinguished sharply between mathe-
matics and physics and assigned a minor role to mathematics. He was not
interested in Prediction.
From this survey we may see that all the philosophers who forged
and molded the Greek intellectual world stressed the study of nature for
comprehension and appreciation of its underlying reality' From the time
of the Pythagoreans, practically all asserted that nature was designed
,.rathe-aiically. During the classical period, the doctrine of the mathematical
design of nature was established and the search for the mathematical laws
instituted. Though this doctrine did not motivate all of the mathematics
subsequently once established it was accepted and consciously
".*t"d,
pr.rr"d by most of the great mathematicians. During the time that this
doctrine held sway, which was until the latter part of the nineteenth century,
the search for the mathematical design was identified with the search
for truth. Though a few Greels-for example, Ptolemy-realized that
mathematical theories were merely human attempts to provide a coherent
account, the belief that mathematical laws were the truth about nature
attracted some of the deepest and noblest thinkers to mathematics'
We should also note, in order to appreciate more readily what happened
in the seventeenth century, the Greek emphasis on the power of the mind'
Because the Greek philosophers believed that the mind was the most power-
ful agent in comprelending nature, they adopted first principles that appealed
to the mind. Thus the belief that circular motion was the basic type, defended
by Aristotle on the ground that the circle is complete whereas a rectilinear
figure, because it is bounded by many curves (line segments) ' is incomplete
aid the"efo." secondary in importance, appealed to the mind on aesthetic
grounds. That the heavenly bodies should move with only constant or uniform
ielocity, was a concePtion which appealed to the mind perhaps because it
was simpler than nonuniform motion. The combination of uniform and
circular motion seemed to befit heavenly bodies. That the sublunar bodies
should be different from the planets, sun, and stars seemed reasonable also,
because the heavenly bodies preserved a constant appearance whereas
change on earth was Lvident. Even Aristotle, who stressed abstractions only
154 THE GREEK RATtoNALrzAfioN oF NATURE
insofar as they helped to understand the observable world, said that we must
start from principles that are known and manifest to the mind and then
proceed to analyze things found in nature. We proceed, he said, from
universals to particulars, from man to men, iust as children call all men
father and then learn to distinguish. Thus even the abstractions made from
concrete objects presuppose some general principles emanating from the
mind. This doctrine, the power of the mind to yield first prin-ciples, was
overthrown in the seventeenth century,
4. Greek Matlumatical Astronomy

Let us examine now what the Greeks produced in the mathematical descrip-
tion of natural phenomena. It is from the time of plato that the several
sciences created by the Greeks take on significant content and direction.
Though we intend to review Greek astronomy, let us note in passing one
aspect of Euclidean geometry. we have already observed thit spherical
geometry was developed for astronomy. Geometry was in fact part of the
larger study of cosmology. Geometric principles were, to the Creels, em_
bodied in the entire structure ofthe universe, ofwhich space was the primary
component, Hence the study of space itself and of figures in space was of
importance to the larger goal. Geometry, in other words, was in itself a
science, the science of physical space.
It was Plato who, though fully aware of the impressive number of
astronomical observations made by the Babylonians and Egyptians, em_
phasized the lack of an underlying or unifying theory or explanation of the
seemingly irregular motions of the planets. Eudoxus, who was for a while a
student at the Academy, took up Plato,s problem of ,. saving the appearances.,,
His answer is the fust reasonably complete astronomicai theoiy. He wrote
four bools on astronomy, Mirror, phenomena, Eight-year period, and, On Spccds,
only fragments of which are known. From these fragments and accounts by
other writers, we know the essence of Eudoxus' theoiy.
The motions of the sun and moon, as viewed from the earth, can be
crudely described as circular with constant speed. However, their deviations
from circular orbits are great enough to have been observed and to require
explanation. The motions of the planets as seen from the earth are even more
complex, for during any one revolution they reverse their course, go backward
for
,a
while, and then go forward again. Moreover, their speeds on these
paths are variable.
To show that the actual, rather complicated, and apparently lawless
motions could be understood in terms of simple circular geometrical motions,
Eudoxus proposed the following scheme: For any one heavenly body there
was a set of three or four spheres, all concentric with the earth as the center,
each rotating about an axis. The innermost sphere carried the body, which
GREEK MATHEMATICAL ASTRONOMY I55
moved along what can be called the equator of that sphere; that is' the
axis
of rotation ias perpendicular to the circular Path of the body' However'
while rotating on itt u*it, this sphere was being carried along by the rotation
of the next of th" sphe.es by the following device' Imagine that
"orr"e.rtric the
the axis of rotation of the firsi sphere is extended at each end to reach
second sphere and that its endpoints are fixed on that second sphere' If'
now, the second sphere rotates about an axis of its own, then this sphere
willcarrytheaxisofthefirstspherearoundwhilethelatterrotatesaboutthat
axis. The axis of the second sphere is in turn carried around by the
rotation
of a third sphere on its own axis. Eudoxus found that, for the sun and moon'
a combina'tion of three spheres sufficed to reproduce the actual motions as
planet a fourth sphere was required' to
viewed from the earth. For each
which the third was related in the manner just described' The outermost
sphereofeachcombinationrotatedonanaxisthroughthecelestialpoles
once in.ach 24 hours. In all, Eudoxus used 27 spheres' Their axes
ofrotation'
speeds of rotation, and radii were chosen to make the theory fit as well as
possible the observations available in his time'

Eudoxus' scheme was mathematically elegant and remarkable in many
and
ways. The very idea of using combinations of spheres was ingenious;
the axes, speeds, and radii to make the resultant motion
the task of choosing
ofthe heavenly boJy fit the actual observations called for tremendous mathe-
matical skill in working with surfaces and curves (i'e' the paths of the planets)
in space.
It is especially worthy of note that Eudoxus' theory is purely mathe-
matical. His spheres, except for the "sphere" of fixed stars, were not material
bodies but m-athematical constructions' Nor did he try to account for
the
forces that would make the spheres rotate as he said they did' His theory is
thoroughly modern in spirit, for today mathematical description and not
physical explanation is the goal in science'
The Eudoxian system had serious shortcomings' It did not include the
path'
variable velocity of the sun and was slightly in error about its actual
of Mars and was un-
His theory did not fit at all well the actual motion
satisfactory for Venus. That Eudoxus tolerated such inadequacies may be
u""orrr,"i for by the fact that he might not have had at his command a
sufficient number of observations. He had probably learned in Egypt only
the main facts about the stationary points' retrogressions, and periods of
revolution of the outer planets (Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn)' Perhaps also
for this reason his values for the sizes and distances of the celestial bodies
wereverycrude.AristarchussaysthatEudoxusbelievedthediameterofthe
sun to be nine times that of the moon'
Aristotle did not appreciate a purely mathematical scheme and hence
that
was not satisfied with Eudoxus' solution' To devise a real mechanism
to rotate, he added 29 spheres' These were
made one sphere force another
r56 TTIE GREEK RATIONALIZATION OF NATURE
Figure 7. I
inserted anrong Eudoxus' so as to make the motion of one sphere drive

another through actual contact and so that all derived their motive power
from the outermost one. In some Aristotelian writings the sphere of stars,
itself moving, is the prime mover of the other spheres. In others there is an
unmoved mover behind the sphere of stars. His 56 spheres so complicated the
system that it was discredited by scientists, though it was popular among
educated laymen in medieval Europe. Aristotle, too, believed that the earth
is spherical, for reasons ofsymmetry and equilibrium and because the shadow
of the earth on the moon, seen in lunar eclipses, is circular.
Writings on astronomy continue after Aristotle in an almost unbroken
sequence. After the works ofAutolycus (Chap. 3, sec. l0) and, the phaenomena
of Euclid (Chap. 4, sec. 11) the next major astronomical works are Alex-
andrian. Chaldean observations, observations made by the Babylonians of
the seleucid period, and measurements made by the Alexandrians themselves
increased enormously the number and accuracy of the available data.
The first great Alexandrian astronomer is Aristarchus (r. 310_230 n.c.),
who was learned in geometry, astronomy, music, and other branches of
science. His book On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon, manuscripts
ofwhich are extant in Greek and Arabic, is the first major attempt to measure
the distances of the sun and moon from the earth and the relative sizes of
these bodies. These calculations are, incidentally, another example of the
quantitative interests of the Alexandrians, Aristarchus did not have trigo_
nometry at his disposal, nor did he have a good value for z (Archimedes,
work on this came later), but he used Euclidean geometry very capably.
He knew that the moon's light is reflected light. When exactly half of the
moon is illuminated, the angle at M (Fig.7.1) is a right angle. The observer
at O can measure the angle there and then the relatizte distances OM and OS
can at least be estimated. Aristarchus, measurement of the angle was 87.;
it is, to the nearest minute, 89"52', Hence he estimated that the sun is more
than lB times and less than 20 times more distant than the moon. The correct
ratio is 346 times more distant.
Knowing the relative distances, Aristarchus calculated the relative
sizes by measuring the sizes of the discs the sun and moon present to the
earth. He concluded that the volume of the sun was 7000 times larger than
GREEK MATHEMATICAL ASTRONOMY r57
that of the moon. He was far from the truth here; the correct number is
2,296,000. He also found the ratio of the diameter of the sun to the diameter
of the earth to be between l9/3 and 43/6; but the correct ratio is about
107.
Aristarchus is equally famous for having been the first to propose the
heliocentric hypothesis-that the earth and the planets all revolve in circles
around the fixed sun. The stars too are fixed and their apparent motion is
due to the rotation of the earth on its axis. The moon revolves about the
earth. Though, as we know today, Aristarchus had the right idea, it was not
accepted for many reasons. For one thing, Greek mechanics (see below),
already well developed by Aristotle, could not account for objects staying
on a moving earth. According to Aristotle, heavy objects seek the center of
the universe. This principle accounted for the fall of objects to earth as long
as it was the center of the universe; but if it moved, the objects would stay
behind. That argument was used by Ptolemy against Aristarchus and, in
fact, was used later against Copernicus because the prevailing system of
mechanics was still Aristotle's. Ptolemy also said that the clouds would lag
behind a moving earth. Further, Aristotle's mechanics required a force to
keep earthly objects in motion and there was no apParent force, We do not
know how Aristarchus answered these arguments.
Another argument advanced against Aristarchus was that if the earth
were in motion its distance from the fixed stars would vary, but it apparently
does not. To this Aristarchus gave the correct rebuttal; he said that the
radius ofthe sphere of fixed stars is so large that the earth's orbit is too small
to matter. Aristarchus' heliocentric idea was rejected by many because it
was impious to identify the corruptible matter of the earth with the incor-
ruptible matter of the heavenly bodies. The hypothesis that the planets move
about the sun in circles is, of course, unsatisfactory, because the motion is
actually more complicated. But the heliocentric idea could have been refined,
as Copernicus did later. It was, however, too radical for Greek thought.
The founder of quantitative mathematical astronomy is Apollonius.
He was called Epsilon because the symbol € was used to denote the moon,
and much of his astronomy was devoted to the motion of that body. Before
considering his work and that of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, to which it is
closely related, we shall examine the basic scheme that had entered Greek
astronomy between the times of Eudoxus and Apollonius, the scheme of
epicycle and deferent. In this schemc a planet P moves at a constant speed
on a circle (Fig. 7.2) with center S, while S itself moves with constant speed
on a circle with center at the earth E. The circle on which S moves is called
the deferent; the circle on which P moves is called the epicycle. The point S
for some planets is the sun but in other cases it is just a mathematical Point.
The direction of the motion of P may agree with or be opposite to the direc-
tion of motion of S. The latter is the case for the sun and moon.
r58 THE GREEK RATIONALIZATION OF NATURE
Figure 7.2
Apollonius is supposed to have known thoroughly the scheme of epi-

cyclic motion and the details which made possible the representation of the
motions of the planets, moon, and sun. Ptolemy credits Apollonius specifically
with determining the points at which a planet appears to be stationary and
reverses its direction of motion.
The climax of Greek astronomy is the work of Hipparchus and Ptolemy.
The scheme of deferent and epicycle was taken over by Hipparchus (died
a. 125 r.c.) and applied to the motion of the five planets then known, the
moon, the sun, and the stars. We know Hipparchus'work through Ptolemy's
Almagest, though it is difficult to distinguish what is due to Hipparchus and
what to Ptolemy. After making observations at Rhodes for thirty-five years
and utilizing Babylonian observations, Hipparchus worked out the details
for the epicyclic theory of motion. By properly selecting the radii of the
epicycle and deferent and the speeds ofa body on its epicycle and the center
of the epicycle on the deferent, he was able to get an improved description
of the motions. He was quite successful for the sun and moon but only
partially so for the planets. From the time of Hipparchus, an eclipse of the
moon could be predicted to within an hour or two, though eclipses of
the sun were predicted less accurately. This theory also accounted for the
seasons,
Hipparchus' most original contribution is his discovery of the precession
ofthe equinoxes. To understand this phenomenon we suppose that the earth's
axis of rotation extends up to the stars. The point in which it hits the sphere
ofstars moves in a circle and takes 2600 years to traverse the circle. In other
words the earth's axis continually changes its direction relative to the stars
and the motion is periodic. The star to which it points at any one time is
called the polar star. The angle subtended by a diameter of the above-
mentioned circle at the earth is 45'.
Hipparchus made many other contributions to astronomy, such as the
construction of instruments for observation, the determination of the angle
of the ecliptic, measurements of irregularities in the motion ol the moon,
improvement of the determination of the length of the solar year (which he
estimated to be 365 days, 5 hours, 55 minutes, and 12 seconds-or about
GREEK MATHEMATICAL ASTRONOMY r59
Figure 7.3
6 l/2 minutes too long), and a catalogue ofabout a thousand stars. He found
that the ratio of the distance to the moon to the radius of the earth was67.74;
the modern figure is 60.4. He calculated the moon's radius to be 1/3 the
earth's radius; the present figure is 27/100.
Ptolemy extended the work of Hipparchus by further improving the
mathematical descriptions of the motions of all the heavenly bodies. The
extended theory, presented in the Almagest, offers a complete exposition of
the geocentric theory of deferent and epicycle, which has come to be known
as the Ptolemaic theory.
To make the geometrical account fit observations, Ptolemy also intro-
duced a variation on epicyclic motion known as uniform equant motion. In
this scheme (fig. 7.3) the planet moves on an epicycle with center Q while
Q moves on a circle with center C which is not the earth but somewhat offset.
He fixed the speed ofQ by introducing the point rR such that EC : CR ar:d
required that i.QRT increase uniformly. Thus Q moves with uniform
angular velocity, but not with uniform linear velocity.
The approach and understanding that the Greek astronomers attained
are thoroughly modern. The Alexandrian Greek astronomers' notably
Hipparchus and Ptolemy, made observations of their ownl in fact, Hip-
parchus did not trust many of the older Egyptian and Chaldean observations
and repeated them. The classical and Alexandrian astronomers not only
constructed theories but fully realized that these theories were not the true
design but just descriptions that fit the observations. Ptolemy says in tlre
AlmagestL that in astronomy one ought to seek as simple as possible a mathe-
matical model. These men, unlike other Greeks, did not look for some physical
explanation of the motions. On this point Ptolemy says,2 "After all, generally
speaking, the cause ofthe first principles is either nothing or hard to interPret
in its nature." But his own mathematical model was later taken as the
literal truth by the Christian world.
l, Book XIII, Chap. 2, last paragraph.

2. Almagcst, Book IX,
Ptolemaic tJreory offered the first reasonably complete evidence of the

uniformity and invariability of nature and was the final Greek answer to
Plato's problem ofrationalizing the apparent motions ofthe heavenly bodies.
No other product ofthe entire Greek era rivaled. the Almagest f$ its profound
influence on conceptions of the universe and none, except Euclid's Elements,
achieved such unquestioned authority.
This brief account of Greek astronomy has not revealed the full depth
and extent of the work done even by the men discussed here, and omits many
other contributions. Almost every Greek mathematician, including Archi-
medes, devoted himself to the subject. Greek astronomy was masterful and
comprehensive and it employed a vast amount of mathematics.
5. Geography
Another science that received its foundation in Greek times is geography.
Though a few classical Greeks such as Anaximander and Hecataeus of
Miletus (died a. 475 a.c.) made maps of the earth as it was known at that
time, it was the Alexandrians who made the great strides in geography,
They measured or calculated distances along the earth, the heights of
mountains, the depths ofvalleys, and the extent ofthe seas. The Alexandrians
were especially stimulated to study geography because the Greek world had
widened.
The first great Alexandrian geographer was Eratosthenes of Cyrene
library at Alexandria, a mathematician,
(c. 284-c. 192 n.c.), director of the
poet, philosopher, historian, philologist, chronologist, and by reputation one
of the most learned men of antiquity. He studied in Plato's school in Athens
and was invited to Alexandria by Ptolemy Euergetes. Eratosthenes worked
at Alexandria until blindness overtook him in his old age; because of this
afliction he starved himself to death.
Eratosthenes collected the available geographical knowledge and made
numerous calculations of distances on the earth between significant places
(such as cities). His most famous calculation is the length of the circumference
of the earth. At noon on the summer solstice, the sun was observed to be
practically overhead at Syene, the city that today is called Aswan (Fig. 7.4).
(This was confirmed by observing that the sun shone directly down a well
there.) At the same time, in Alexandria, which is (within t') on the same
meridian as Syene but north of it, the angle between the overhead direction
for that location (O.B in the figure) and the direction of the sun (lD in the
figure) was observed to be 1/50 of 360'. The sun is so far from the earth that
SE and AD may be considered parallel. Hence {SOl is l/50 x 360'. This
means that arc Sl is 1/50 of the circumference of the earth. Eratosthenes
estimated the distance from Alexandria to Syene by using the fact that
GEOGRAPHY I6I
camel trains, which usually traveled 100 stadia a day, took 50 days to reach
Syene. llence this distance is 5000 stadia and the circumference of the
earth is 250,000 stadia. It is believed that a stadium was 157 meters so that
Eratosthenes' result is 24,662 miles. This result was far more accurate than
all previous estimates.
Eratosthenes wrote the Geography, in which he incorporated the methods
and results of his measurements and calculations. It includes explanations of
the nature and causes of the changes that had taken place on the earth's
surface. He also made a map of the world.
Scientific map-making became part of the work of geography. Hip-
parchus is generally credited with introducing latitude and longitude, though
the scheme was known earlier. The use of latitude and longitude, ofcourse,
permitted accurate description of locations on the earth. Hipparchus did
invent orthographic projection, in which "light rays" from infinity project
the earth on a plane (Fig. 7.5). Our view of the moon, for example, is
practically orthographic. This method enabled him to map a portion of the
earth onto a flat surface.
Ptolemy in his Planisphaerium, and probably Hipparchus before him,
used the method of stereographic projection' A line from O (Fig' 7'6)
through P on the earth's surface is continued until it hits the equatorial
plane or a tanBent plane at the opposite pole' Hipparchus supposedy used
Figure 7.6
r62 THE GREEK RAflONALIZATION OF NATURE
,..-._--.\
Figure
the latter and Ptolemy the equatorial plane. Thus points on the sphere are
transferred to a plane. In this scheme all points on the map have true
direction from the center of the map. Also angleS are preserved locally
(conformal mapping), though Ptolemy does not mention this. The meridians
and the parallels of latitude are therefore at right angles. Circles on the
sphere become circles on the plane, but area is not preserved. Ptolemy
himself invented conical projection, that is, the projection ofa region on the
earth from the center of the sphere onto a tangent cone (Fig. 7.7).
In his Geographia, a work in eight books, Ptolemy teaches methods of
map-making. Chapter 24 of Book I is the oldest work extant that is devoted
by title and contents to mapping a sphere onto a plane. The entire Geographia
is the first atlas and gazeteer. It gives the latitude and longitude of 8000
places on the earth and was the standard reference for hundreds of years.
6. Mechan'ics
The Greeks initiated the science of mechanics. ln his Physirs, Aristotle put
together a theory of motion that is the high point of Greek mechanics. Like
all of his physics, his mechanics is based on rational, seemingly self-evident
principles only slightly checked by or drawn from observation and experiment.
There are, according to Aristotle, two kinds of motion, natural and
violent or man-made. The heavenly spheres possess only natural motion,
which is circular. As for earthly objects, he taught that a natural motion (as
opposed to violent motions caused by throwing or pulling a body from one
place to another) arises from the fact that each body has a natural place in
the universe where it is in equilibrium or at rest. Heavy bodies have their
natural place at the center of the universe, which is the center of the earth.
Light bodies, such as gases, have their natural place in the sky. Natural
motion results when a body seeks its natural place. In natural motions earthly
objects move up or down in straight lines. Ifan earthly object were not in its
natural place it would seek that place as soon as possible. Violent motions,
that is, man-made ones, are composed of circular and rectilinear parts.
Thus a stone thrown out and up follows a straight line path up and a straight
Iine path down.
MEcHANrcs 163
Any body in motion is su6ject to a force and a resistance. In the case of

natural motion, the force is the weight of the body, and the resistance comes
from the medium in which the body moves. In violent motion the force is
applied by the hand or by some mechanism and the resistance comes from
the body's weight. Without force there could be no motion; without resistance
the motion would be accomplished in an instant. The velocity of any motion,
then, depends upon the force and the resistance. These principles can be
summed up in modern form by the formula V a. FIR; that is, the velocity
depends directly upon the force and inversely upon the resistance.
Since in violent motion the resistance is furnished by the weight, for
lighter bodies the resistance, B, is smaller. By the above formula, the velocity
Z must then be larger; that is, lighter bodies move faster under the same
force. In the case of natural motion, the force is the weight, and so heavier
bodies fall faster. Since in natural motion the resistance is furnished by the
medium, in a vacuum the velocity would be infinite. Hence a vacuum is
impossible.
Aristotle had difficulty accounting for some phenomena' To explain the
increasing velocities of falling bodies he said that the speed increases as the
body comes closer to its natural place because the body moves more jubilandy;
but this is not consistent with the speed being dependent on the fixed weight.
In the case ofan arrow shot from a bow, Aristotle said the arrow continued
to move, although no longer in contact with the bow, because the hand or
bowstring communicated a power of movement to the air nearby and this
air to the next layer of air, and so on. Alternatively the air in front of the
arrow is compressed and rushes around to the rear of the arrow to Prcvent
a void and so the arrow is pushed forward. He did not explain the decay of
the motive power,
The greatest mathematical physicist of Greek times is Archimedes. He,
more than any other Greek writer, tied geometry to mechanics and used geo-
metrical arguments ingeniously to make his proofs. In mechanics he wrote
On ttu Equili.brium of Planes or The Centers of Grattity of Plancs, a work in two
books. By the center of gravity of a body or of a collection of bodies
rigidly attached to each other he means, as we do, the Point at which the
body or collection of bodies can be supported so as to be in equilibrium
under the pull of gravity. He starts with postulates about the lever and
center of gravity. For example (the numbering follows Archimedes):
1. Equal weights at equal distances are in equilibrium and equal weights at
unequal distances are not in equilibrium but incline towards the weight
which is at greater distance.
2. If, when weights at certain distances are in equilibrium, something be
added to one of the weights, they are not in equilibrium but incline towards
the weight to which the addition was made.
t64 THE GREEK RATIONALIZATION OF NATI'RE
5. In figures which are unequal but similar the centers of gravity will be
similarly situated.. . .
7. In any figure whose perimeter is concave in the same direction the center
of gravity must be within the figure.
He follows these postulates with a number of propositions, some of whose

proofs depend upon results in a lost treatise, On Leoers:
Proposition 4. If two equal weights have not the same center of gravity, the
center of gravity of both taken together is at the middle point of the lines
joining their centers of gravity.
Propositions 6 and 7. Two magnitudes whether commensurable or incom-
mensurable balance at distances reciprocally proportional to the magnitudes.
Proposition 10. The center of gravity of any parallelogram is the point of

intersection of its diagonals.
Proposition 14. The center of gravity ofany triangle is at the intersection of
the lines drawn from any two vertices to the middle points of the opposite
sides respectively.
Book II deals with the center of gravity of a parabolic segment. Among

the principal theorems are:
Proposition 4. The center ol gravity of any parabolic segment cut off by a

straight line lies on the diameter of the segment.
The diameter is,4O (Fig. 7.8), where O is the midpoint of BD and AO

is parallel to the axis of the parabola. The prool uses results obtained in his
Quadrature of tlu Parabola.
Proposition B. If AO be the diameter of a parabolic segment and G its center

of gravity, then AG : (312)GO.
MEcrrAMcs 165
Work on centers of gravity is found in many books of the Alexandrian

Greek period. Examples are Fleron's Mechanica and Book VIII of Pappus'
Matlumatical Collection (Chap. 5, sec. 7).
The science of hydrostatics-the study of fluid pressure when the fluid
is at rest-was founded by Archimedes. In his book Oz Floating Bodies he is
interested in the pressure exerted by water on objects placed in it. He gives
two postulates. The first is to the effect that the pressure exerted by any part
of a fluid on the fluid is downward. The second postulate states that the
pressure of the fluid on a body placed in it is exerted upward along
the perpendicular through the center of gravity of the body. Some of the
theorems he proves in Book I are:
Proposition 2 . The surface of any fluid at rest is the surface of a sphere whose
center is the same as that of the earth.
Proposition 3. Of solids those which, size for size, are of equal weight with a
fluid will, if let down into the fluid, be immersed so that they do not Project
above the surface but do not sink lower.
Proposition 5. Any solid lighter than a fluid will, if placed in the fluid, be so
far immersed that the weight of the solid [in air] will be equal to the weight
of the fluid displaced.
Proposition 7. A solid heavier than a fluid will, ifplaced in it, descend to the
bottom of the fluid, and the solid will, when weighed in the fluid, be lighter
than its true weight by the weight of the fluid displaced.
This last proposition is believed to be the one Archimedes used to
determine the contents of the famous crown (Chap. 5, sec. 3). He must have
argued as follows: Let Wbe the weight of the crown' Take a crown of pure
gold and of weight W and weigh it in the fluid. It will weigh less by some
amount, F1, which is the weight of the displaced water. Likewise a weight
W of ptlr.e silver will displace water of weight F, which can be measured by
weighing the silver in the water. Then if the original crown contains weight
u1 of gold and weight za2 of silver, the original crown will displace a weight
of water equal to
#" *#"'
Let F be the actual weight of the water displaced by the crown. Then
#" *#": o
w1F1 * w{z: (q + wr)F

or
',to2:lz-
F-F,
F.
Thus Archimedes was able to determine the ratio of the gold to the silver in
the crown without destroying the crown. Vitruvius' account of this story is
that Archimede used. volumes of displaced water instead of weights. In this
case, the fl Fr, and F, above are, respectively, the volumes of water dis-
placed by the crown, a weight llz of pure gold, and a weight I,/ of pure silver.
The same algebra follows but Proposition 7 is not involved. Archimedes did
find that the gold had been debased with silver.
To gain some appreciation of the mathematical and physical complexity
of the problems treated by Archimedes in this work, we shall cite one of the
simple propositions of Book II.
Proposition 2. Ifa right segment ofa paraboloid of revolution whose axis is
not greater tha,l 3pl4 [p is the principal parameter or latus rectum of the
generating parabola], and whose specific gravity is less than that ofa fluid,
be placed in the fluid with its axis inclined to the vertical at any anBle, but
so that the base of the segment does not touch the surface of the fluid (Fig,
7.9), the segment of the paraboloid will not remain in that position but will
return to the position in which its axis is vertical.
The subject Archimedes is treating is the stability of bodies placed in
water. IIe shows under what conditions a body will, when placed in water,
either turn to or remain in a position of equilibrium. The problems are
clearly idealizations of how ships would behave when obliged to assume
different tilts in water.
7. Optics
Nort to astronomy, optics has been the most constantly pursued and most
successful of the mathematical sciences. It was founded by the Greeks.
Almost all of the Greek philosophers, beginning with the Pythagoreans,
speculated on the nature oflight, vision, and color. Our concern, however, is
with tfie mathematical accomplishments. The first of these is the assertion on
a priori grounds by Empedocles of Agrigentum in Sicily (c. 490 n.c.) that
light travels with finite velocity.
The first systematic treatments that we have are Euclid's Optits and.
Cataptrica.The Opticsis concerned with the problem ofvision and with the use
of vision to determine sizes of objects. Euclid begins with definitions (which
are really postulates), the first of which states (as had Plato) that vision is
possible because rays of light emitted by the eye travel along straight lines
and impinge on the object seen, Definition 2 states that the figure formed by
t67
Figure 7.10
the visual rays is a cone that has its vertex in the eye and its base at the
extremities of the object seen. Definition 4 says that of two objects the one
that determines a greater vertex angle of the cone appears greater. Then in
Proposition B Euclid proves that the apparent sizes of two equal and parallel
objects (,4.8 and, CD in Fig. 7.10) are not proportional to their distances from
the eye. Propositions 23 to 27 prove that the eye looking at a sphere really
sees less than half of it, and that the contour of what is seen is a circle.
Propositions 32 to 37 point out that the eye looking at a circle will see a circle
only if the eye is located on the perpendicular to the plane of the circle and
the perpendicular strikes the center. Euclid also shows how to calculate the
sizes of objects that are seen as images in a plane mirror. There are 58
propositions in the book.
The Catoptri.ca (theory of mirrors) describes the behavior of light rays
reflected from plane, concave, and convex mirrors and the effect of this
behavior on what we see. Like th,e Optics, it starts with definitions that are
really postulates. Theorem l, the law of reflection, is now fundamental in
what is called geometrical optics. It says that the angle A, which the incident
ray makes with the mirror (Fig. 7. t 1), equals the angle B, which the reflected
ray makes with the mirror. It is more customary today to say that {C : {D
and to speak of {Cas the angle of incidence and {D as the angle of reflec-
tion. Euclid also proves the law for a ray striking a convex or a concave
mirror by substituting a tangent for the mirror at the point where the ray
strikes.
Figure 7,1 I
168 TIIE GREEK RATIoNALIZATIoN oF NATURE
From the law of reflection Heron drew an important consequence. If

P and, Q (Fig. 7.11) are any two points on one side of the line S7, then of
all the paths one could follow in going from point P to the line and then to
point Q the shortest path is by way of the point .R such that the two line
segments Pfi and Q.R make equal angles with the line-which is exactly the
path a light ray takes. Hence, the light ray takes the shortest path in going
from P to the mirror to Q. Apparently nature is well acquainted with
geometry and employs it to full advantage. This proposition appears in
Heron's Catoptrica, which also treats concave and convex mirrors and
combinations of mirrors.
Any number of works were written on the reflection of light by mirrors
of various shapes. Among these are the now lost Catoptrica of Archimedes
and the two works, both called On Burning-Mirrars, by Diocles.and Apollonius.
Burning-mirrors were undoubtedly concave mirrors shaped like spheres,
paraboloids of revolution, and ellipsoids, the last formed by revolving an
ellipse about its major axis. Apollonius undoubtedly knew that a paraboloidal
mirror will reflect light emanating from the focus into a beam parallel to the
axis of the mirror. Conversely, rays coming in parallel to the axis will, after
reflection, be concentrated at the focus. The sun's rays thus concentrated
produce great heat at the focus; hence the term burning-mirror. This is the
property of the paraboloidal mirror that Archimedes is supposed to have
used to concentrate the sun's rays on the Roman ships and set them afire.
Apollonius also knew the reflection properties of the other conic sections-for
example, that all rays emanating from one focus of the ellipsoidal mirror
will be reflected to the other focus. He gives the relevant geometrical proper-
ties of the ellipse and hyperbola in Book III of his Conic Sections (Chap. 4,
sec. l2). Later Greeks, Pappus in particular, certainly knew the focusing
property of the paraboloid.
The phenomenon of refraction of light-that is, the bending of light
rays as they pass through a medium whose properties change from point to
point, or the sudden change in the direction of a light ray as it passes from
one medium into another, say from air to water, was studied by the Alex-
andrian Greeks. Ptolemy noted the effect of refraction by the atmosphere on
rays coming from the sun and stars and attempted, unsuccessfully, to find the
correct law of refraction when light passes from air to water or air to glass.
H.is Optics, which deals with both mirrors and refraction, is extant.
8. Astrology
Though astrology is not accepted as a science today, in earlier civilizations
it did have that standing. The astrology developed by the Alexandrian Greeks
ofabout the second century B.c. was different from the Babylonian astrology
of the Assyrian period. The latter merely drew from observations of the
BrBLrocRAPr{Y 169
positions of the planets some conclusions about the king and affairs of state.
There were no computations, and the appearance ol the sky at the moment
of birth played no role. However, Hellenistic or Alexandrian astrology was
personal; it predicted the future and fate of specific individuals on the basis
ofthe computed positions ofthe sun, moon, and the five planets in the zodiac
at the moment of birth. To evaluate these data an enormous body of doctrines
was built up.
Certainly the science was taken seriously by the Alexandrian Greels.
Ptolemy wrote a well-known work on the subject, the Quadrilartite ot Tetra-
biblos, or Four Books Concerning the hfruence o1f tlu Stars, in which he gave rules
for astrological predictions that \,vere used for a thousand years.
The importance of astrology in the history of science lies in the motiva-
tion it supplied for the study of astronomy, not only in Greece but in India,
Arabia, and medieval Europe. Astrology nourished astronomy much as
alchemy nourished chemistry. Curiously, errors in astrological predictions
were ascribed to errors in astronomy, not to the unreliability ofthe astrological
doctrines.
Alexandrian Greece witnessed the beginnings of the application of
mathematics to medicine, peculiarly enough through the medium of
astrology. Doctors, called iatromathematicians, employed astrological signs
to decide courses of treatment. Galen, the great physician of Greek times, was
a firm believer in astrology, perhaps excusably so since Ptolemy, the most
renowned astronomer, was also. This connection between mathematics and
medicine became stronger in the Middle Ages.
Our account of Greek science, in view of our concern with mathematics,
has dealt with the mathematical sciences. The Greeks carried on other
'investigations, in areas where mathematics, at least at that time, played no
role. Moreover, they performed experiments and made observations, the
latter particularly in astronomy. Nevertheless their vital achievement is that
they established the value of mathematics in the scientific enterprise. The
Platonic dialogue Philebus first gave expression to the thought that each
science is a science only so far as it contains mathematics; this doctrine gained
immense support from the Greek accomplishments. Moreover, the Greeks
produced ample evidence that nature is mathematically designed. It was
their vision of nature and their initiation of the mathematical investigation
of nature that inspired the creation of mathematics, in Greek times and in all
succeeding centuries.
Bibliography
Apostle, H. G.: Aristotle's Philosoplry of Matlumatics, University of Chicago Press,
1952.
Berry, Arthur: A Short Hi.story of Asbonong, Dover (reprint), 1961, Chaps. l-2.
r7o TrrE GREEK RATTONALTZATTON OF NATI,RE
Clagett, Marshall: Grcck Scitncc in Antiquity, Abelard-Schuman, 1955,

Dreyer, J. L. E,: A History of Astloronq Jrom Thales to KcpLcr, Dover (reprint),
1953, Chaps. l-9.
Farrington, Benjamin: Grcek Scilrcc,2 vols., Penguin Bools, 1944 and 1949.
Gomperz, Theodor: Grcek Thinkrs,4 vols., John Murray, 1920.
Heath, Thomas L.: Greck Astrorctrry, J. M. Dent and Sons, 1932.
................._: Aristarchus oJ Samos, Oxford University Press, 1913.
Tlu Workr of Archinudcs, Dover (reprint), 1953, pp. 189-220 and 253-300.
Jaeger, Werner: Paidcia,3 vols., Oxford University Press, 1939-44.
Pannekoek,
-: A.: A History of Astrononry, John Wiley and Sons, 1961.
Sambunky, S.'. Tlu Plrysital World of tlu Gracfu, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1956.
Santillana, G. del Tlu Origins of Scicntfic Thought from Anatimandcr to Proclus,
600 B.C. to 300 A.D., University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Sarton, George: A Hirtory of Scimce, Harvard University Press, 1952 and 1959,
Vols. I and 2.
Vcr Eecle, Pariz Etulide, L'Optiqua et la catofitriquc, Albert Blanchard, 1959,
Wcdberg, Anders: Plalo's Phihsoplry oJ Matlumatirs, Almqvist and Wiksell, 1955.
B
The Demise
of the Greek World
He who understands Archimedes and Apollonius will admire
less the achievements of the foremost men of later times'
G. W. LEIBNIZ
l. A Reaiew d the Greek Achi.eaements

Though the Alexandrian Greek civilization lasted until e.o. 640, when it was
finally destroyed by the Mohammedans, it is apparent, from its decreasing
productiveness, that the civilization was already declining in the early
centuries ofthe Christian era. Before investigating the reasons for the decline,
we shall summarize the achievements and deficiencies of Greek mathematics
and note the problems it left for subsequent generations. The Greeks accom-
plished so much, and the pursuit of mathematics when taken over by the
Europeans, after minor interpolations by the Hindus and Arabs, was so
completely determined by what the Greeks bequeathed, that it is important
to be clear as to where mathematics stood.
The Greeks are to be credited with making mathematics abstract' This
major contribution is of immeasurable significance and value, for the fact
that the same abstract triangle or algebraic equation may apply qr hundrcds
of different physical situations has proved to be the secret of the power of
mathematics,
The Gree}s insisted on deductive proof. This was indeed an €xtra-
ordinary step. Of the hundreds of civilizations that have existed a number
did develop some crude arithmetic and geometry. However, no civilization
but the Greeks conceived the idea of establishing conclusions exclusively by
deductive reasoning. The decision to require deductive proof is entirely at
odds with the methods mankind has utilized in all other fields; it is, in fact,
almost irrational, since so much highly reliable knowledge is acquired by
experience, induction, reasoning by analogy, and experimentation' But the
Greeks wanted truths, and saw that they could obtain them only by the
unquestionable methods of deductive reasoning. They also realized that to
r7r
172 THE DEMTSE OF THE GREEK WORLD
secure truths they had to start from truths, and be sure not to assume any
unwarranted facts. Hence they stated all their axioms explicitly and in
addition adopted the practice ofstating them at the very outset oftheir work
so that they could be examined critically at once.
Beyond conceiving this highly remarkable plan to establish secure
knowledge, the Greeks showed a sophistication one could hardly expect
from innovators. Their recognition that the concepts must be free of con-
tradiction and that one cannot build a consistent structure by working with
nonexistent figures (such as a ten-faced regular polyhedron) shows an almost
superhuman and certainly unprecedented keenness of thought. As we now
know, their method of establishing the existence of concepts, so they could
deal with them, was to demonstrate their constructibility with straight-
edge and compass.
The power of the Greeks to divine theorems and proofs is attested to by
the fact that Euclid's E/ements contains 467 propositions and Apollonius' Canic
Sections contains 487, all derived from the I0 axioms in the Elements. No doubt
secondary in importance, and perhaps secondary in intent, is the coherence
that the deductive structures provided. Were the same results obtainable
from numerous different-though equally reliable-sets of axioms, they
might have presented far less manageable and assimilable knowledge.
The Greek contribution to the content of mathematics-plane and solid
geomery, plane and spherical trigonometry, the beginnings of the theory of
numbers, the extension of Babylonian and Egyptian arithmetic and algebra
enormous, especially in view of the small number of people involved and
-is
the few centuries of extensive activity. To these contributions we must add
the geomerical algebra, which awaited only the recognition of irrational
numbers and translation into symbolic language to become the basis of
considerable elementary algebra. The treatment ofcurvilinear figures by the
method of exhaustion, though part of their geometry, also warrants special
mention because it is the beginning of the calculus.
An equally vital contribution and inspiration to later generations was
the Greek conception of nature. The Greeks identified mathematics with the
reality of the physical world and saw in mathematics the ultimate truth about
the structure and design ofthe universe. They founded the alliance between
mathematics and the disinterested study of nature , which has since become
the very basis of modern science. Moreover, they went far enough in rational-
izing nature to establish firmly the conviction that the universe is indeed
mathematically designed, that it is controlled, lawful, and intelligible to man.
The aesthetic appeal of mathematics was by no means overlooked. In
Greek times the subject was also valued as an art; beauty, harmony, simplic-
ity, clarity, and order were recognized in it. Arithmetic, geometry, and
astronomy were considered the art of the mind and music for the soul. Plato
delighted in geometry; Aristotle would not divorce mathematics from
TTIE LIMITATIONS OF GREEK MATHEMATICS I73
aesthetics, for order and symmetry were to him important elements of

beauty, and these he found in mathematics. Indeed, rational and aesthetic,
as well as moral, interests can hardly be separated in Greek thought'
Repeatedly one reads that the sphere has the most beautiful shape of all
bodies at d is therefore divine and good. The circle shared aesthetic appeal
with the sphere; it therelore seemed obvious that the circle should be the
path of those bodies that represented the changeless, eternal order of the
h".,r.rrr, whereas straightJine motion prevailed on the imperfect earth'
There is no doubt that it was the aesthetic appeal of the subject that caused
Greek mathematicians to carry the exploration of particular topics beyond
their use in understanding the physical world'
2. The Limitations oJ Greek Mathemat'ics

Despite its marvelous achievements, Greek mathematics was flawed' Its
limiiations indicate the avenues of progress that were yet to be opened up'
The first limitation was the inability to grasp the concept of the irra-
tional number. This meant not only a restriction of arithmetic and algebra
but a turn to and an emphasis on geometry' because geometrical thinking
avoided explicit confrontation of the irrational as a number. Had the Greeks
faced the irrational number, they might have furthered the development of
arithmetic and algebra; and even if they themselves had not done so, they
would not have hindered later generations, which were induced to think that
only geometry offered a secure foundation for the treatment of any magnitude
whose values might include irrationals' Archimedes, Heron, and Ptolemy
started to work with irrationals as numbers, but did not alter the tenor of
Greek mathematics or the subsequent impress of Greek thought' The Greek
concentration on geometry blurred the vision oflater generations by masking
the intimate correspondence between geometric and arithmetic concePts and
operations. The failure to define, accept, and conceptualize the irrational as
a-number forced a distinction between number and magnitude. consequently
algebra and geometry were regarded as unrelated disciplines'
Had the Greeks been less concerned to be logical and precise they might
have casually accepted and operated with irrational numbers as had the
Babylonians, and as civilizations succeeding the Greeks did. But the intuitive
basis of the idealization was not clear, and the logical construction was not
quite within their power. The Greek virtue ofinsisting on exact concePts and
proofs was a defect so far as creative mathematics was concerned'
The restriction of rigorous mathematics (apart from the theory of
numbers) to geometry imposed another serious disadvantage' The use of
geometric methods led to more and more complicated proofs as mathematics
was extended, particularly in the area of solid geometry' Moreover, even in
the simpler proofs there is a lack of general methods, which is clear to us now
174 TIIE DEMME OP THE GREEK WORLD
that we have analytic geometry and the calculus. When one considers how
hard Archimedes worked to find the area ofa parabolic segment or the area
under an arc of his spiral and compares this with the modern calculus
treatment, one appreciates the effectiveness of the calculus.
Not only did the Greels restrict mathematics largely to geometry; they
even Iimited that subject to figures that could be obtained from the line and
circle. Accordingly, the only surfaces admitted were those obtained by
revolving lines and circles about an axis, for example the cylinder, cone, and
sphere, formed by the revolution of a rectangle, triangle, and circle, respec-
tively, about a line. A few exceptions were made: the plane, which is the
analogue of a line; the prism, which is a special cylinder; and the pyramid,
which results from decomposition of a prism. The conic sections were intro-
duced by cutting cones by a plane. Curves such as the quadratrix of Hippias,
the conchoid of Nicomedes, and the cissoid of Diocles were kept on the fringe
of geometry; they were called mechanical, rather than geometrical.
Pappus' classification of curves shows an attempt to keep within fixed
bounds. The Greeks, according to Pappus, distinguished curves as follows :
Plane loci or plane curves \ivere those constructed from straight lines and
circles; the conics were called solid loci because they originated from the
cone; the linear curves, such as quadratrices, conchoids, cissoids, and spirals
constituted the third class. Similarly, they distinguished among plane, solid,
and linear problems. Plane problems were solved by means of straight lines
and circles; solid problems were solved by one or more of the conic sections.
Problems that could not be solved by means of straight lines, circles, or conics
were called linear, because they used lines (curves) having a more compli-
cated or less natural origin than the others, Pappus stressed the importance
of solving problems by means of plane or solid loci because then the criterion
for the possibility ofa real solution can be given.
Why did the Greels limit their geometry to line and circle and figures
readily derived from them? One reason was that this solved the problem of
establishing the existence of geometrical figures. As we saw, Aristotle, in
particular, pointed out that we must be sure that the concepts introduced are
not self-contradictory; that is, they must be shown to exist. To settle this
point, the Greeks, in principle at least, admitted only those concepts that
were constructible. Line and circle were accepted as constructible in the
postulates but all other figures had to be constructed with line and circle.
However, the use of constructions to establish existence was not carried
over to figures in three dimensions, Here the Greeks apparently accepted
what was intuitively clear, for example the existence of figures of revolution
such as sphere, cylinder, and cone. Sections of these figures by planes
produced curves such as the conic sectionsl thus even figures in the plane
whose existence was not established were accepted-but reluctantly.
Descartes notes this point near the beginning of Book lI of La Gtomttrie:
THE LIUTTATIONS OF GREEK MATIIEMAIICS I75
.,It is true that the conic sections were never freely received into ancient
geometry...."
- Another reason for the limitation to line, circle, and figures derived
from them stems from Plato, according to whom ideas had to be clear to be
acceptable. While the whole number seemed to be acceptable as a clear idea
in itselfi even though never explicitly defined by the Greeks, the geometric
figures irad to be made precise. Lines and circles and figures derived from
thlm were clear, whereas curves introduced by mechanical instruments
(other than straightedge and compass) were not, and- so were not admissible'
ihe restriction 1o figures produced a simple, well-arranged, har-
"liu"
monious, and beautiful geometry.
By insisting on a unity, a comPleteness, and a simplicity for their
g"o-"try, and by separating speculative thought from utility, cla$ical Gre€k
!"o*"try-becuml . ii-ited accomplishment. It narrowed people's
vision and^
closed their minds to new thoughts and methods. It carried ldithin itself
the seeds ofits own death. The narrowness of its field of action, the exclusive-
ness ofits point of view, and the aesthetic demands on it might have arrcsted
its development, had not the influences of the Alexandrian civilizztion
broadened the outlook of Greek mathematicians.
The philosophical doctrines of the Greeks limited mathematics in
another way. Thioughout the classical period they believed that man does
not create tjre mathematical {iacts: they preexist. He is limited to ascef,taining
and recording them. Inthe Tluactctus Plato compares the search for knowlcdge
to a bird-hunl pursued in an aviary. The birds, already captive, need only to
be seized. This belief about the nature of mathematics did not prevail'
The Greeks failed to comprehend the infinitely large, the infinitdy
small, and infinite processes. They " shrank before the silence of infnite
,pu""r." The Pythagoreans associated good and evil with the limited and
unlimited, .espi"tit Aristotle says the infinite is imperfect, unfinished,
"ly.
and therefore unthinkable; it is formless and codused' Only as objects are
delimited and distinct do they have a nature.
To avoid any assertion about the infinitude of the straight line, Euclid
says a line segment (he uses the word "line" in this sense) can be extended
as far as t iJnwillingness to involve the infinitely large is seen also
in Euclid's"""irr.ry.
statement of the parallel axiom. Instead of considering two lines
that extend to infinity and giving a direct condition or assumption under
which parallel lines might exist, his parallel axiom gives a condition under
which two lines will meet at some finite point.
The concept of the infinitely small is involved in the relation of points
to a line or the relation of the discrete to the continuous, and Zeno's pata-
doxes may have caused the Greeks to shy away from this subject. The relation-
ship of point to line bothered the Greeks and led Aristotle to separate the two.
fh""gh he admits points are on lines, he says that a line is not madc up of
,76 .r'HD DEMISE oF THE GREEK woRLD
points and that the continuous cannot be made up ofthe discrete (Chap. 3,
sec. I0). This distinction contributed also to the presumed need for separating
number from geometry, since to the Greeks numbers were discrete and
geometry dealt with continuous magnitudes.
Because they feared infinite processes they missed the limit process. In
approximating a circle by a polygon they were content to make the difference
smaller than any given quantity, but something positive was always left over.
Thus the process remained clear to the intuition; the limit process, on the
other hand, would have involved the infinitely small.
3. The Problems Bequeathed by the Greeks

The limitations of Greek mathematical thought almost automatically imply
the problems the Greeks left to later generations. The failure to accept the
irrational as a number certainly left open the question ol whether number
could be assigned to incommensurable ratios so that these could be treated
arithmetically. With the irrational number, algebra could also be extended.
Instead of turning to geometry to solve quadratic and other equations that
might have irrational roots, these problems could be treated in terms of
number, and algebra could develop from the stage where the Egyptians and
Babylonians or where Diophantus, who refused to consider irrationals, left it.
Even for whole numbers and ratios of whole numbers, the Greeks gave
no logical foundation; they supplied only some rather vague definitions,
which Euclid states in Books VII to IX of the E/e ments. The need for a logical
foundation of the number system was aggravated by the Alexandrians' free
use of numbers, including irrationals; in this respect they merely continued
the empirical traditions of the Egyptians and Babylonians. Thus the Greeks
bequeathed two sharply different, unequally developed branches of mathe-
matics. On the one hand, there was the rigorous, deductive, systematic
geometry and on the other, the heuristic, empirical arithmetic and its
extension to algebra.
The failure to build a deductive algebra meant that rigorous mathe-
matics was confined to geometry; indeed, this continued to be the case as
late as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when algebra and the
calculus had already become extensive. Even then rigorous mathematics
still meant geometry.
The limitation of Euclidean geometry to concepts constructible \ /ith
straightedge and compass left mathematics with two tasks. The first was
specific, to show that one could square the circle, trisect any angle, and
double the cube with straightedge and compass. These three problems
exerted an enormous fascination and even today intrigue people although,
as we shall see, they were disposed of in the nineteenth century.
The second task was to broaden the criteria for existence. Construc-
THE DEMSE OE TIIE GREEK CIVILIZATION I77
tibility as a means of proving existence turned out to be too restrictive ofthe

concepts with which mathematics should (and later did) deal' Moreover,
since some lengths are not constructible, the Euclidean line is incomplete;
that is, strictly it does not contain those lengths that are not constructible.
To be internaily complete and more useful in the study of the physical world,
mathematics had to free itselfofa narrow technique for establishing existence'
As we saw, the attempt to avoid a direct affirmation about infinite
parallel straight lines caused Euclid to phrase the parallel axiom in a rather
co-plicated way. He realized that, so worded, this axiom lacked the self-
evidency of the other nine axioms, and there is good reason to believe that
he avoiied using it until he had to. Many Greeks tried to find substitute
axioms for the parallel axiom or to prove it on the basis of the other nine'
Ptolemy wrote a tract on this subject; Proclus, in his commentary on Euclid,
gives Ptolemy's attempt to prove the parallel postulate and also tries to
prove it himself. Simplicius cites others who worked on the Problem and says
iurther that people ;'in ancient times" objected to the use of the parallel
postulate.
Closely related to the problem of the parallel postulate is the problem
of whether physical space is infinite. Euclid assumes in Postulate 2 that a
straightJine segment can be extended as far as necessary; he uses this fact,
but only to obtain a larger finite length-for example in Book I, Propositions
Il, 16, and 20. For these theorems Heron gave new proofs that avoid
extending the lines, in order to meet the objection ofanyone who would deny
that the rp.""!v.. available for the ortension. Aristotle had considered the
question of *hether space is infinite and gave six nonmathemati"d ttgt-
ments to prove that it is finite; he foresaw that this question would be
troublesome .
Another major problem left to posterity was the calculation of areas
bounded by curves and volumes bounded by surfaces' The Greeks, notably
Eudoxus and Archimedes, had not only tackled such problems but had, as
we have seen, mad.e significant progress by using the method of exhaustion'
But the method was deficient in at least two respects. First, each problem
called for some ingenious scheme of approximating the area or volume in
question; but human inventiveness simply could not have handled in this
-.rrra, the areas and volumes that had to be calculated later' Second' the
Greek result was usually the equivalence of the desired area or volume to the
area or volume of some simpler figure whose size still was not known quanti-
tatively. But it is quantitative knowledge that applications require'
4. The Dernise of the Greek Ciai.lization

Beginning approximately with the start of the Christian era, the vitality
of b...k maihematical activity declined steadily' The only important
r?8 TIIE DEMTSE oE THE GREEK woRLn
contributions in the new era were those of Ptolemy and Diophantus. The
gr,eat commentators Pappus and Proclus warrant attention, but they merely
close the record. The decline of this civilization, which for five or six cen-
turies made contributions far surpassing in er(tent and brilliance those of any
other, calls for orplanation.
Unfortunately, mathematicians are as subject to the forces of history as
the lowliest peasant. One has only to familiarize himself with the most super-
ficial facts about the political history of the Alexandrian Greeks of the
Christian era to see that not only mathematics but every cultrrral activity
was detined to suffer. As long as the Alo<andrian Greek civilization was
ruled by thc dynasty of the Ptolemies, it flourished. The first disaster was the
advent of the Romans, whose entire role in the history of mathematics was
that of an agent of destruction.
Before discussing their impact on the Alo<andrian Greek civilization,
let us note a few facts about Roman mathematics and the nature of the
Roman civilization. Roman mathematics hardly warrants mention. The
period during which the Romans figured in history extends from about
750 s.c. to l.o. 476, roughly the same period during which the Greek
civilization flourished. Moreover, as we shall see, from at least 200 s.c.
onward, tlre Romans were in close contact with the Greels. Yet in all of the
eleven hundred years there was not one Roman mathematician; apart from
a few details this fact in itself tells virtually the whole story of Roman
mathematics.
The Romars did have a crude arithmetic and some approximate
geometric formulas t"lr.at were later supplemented by borrowings from the
Alorandrian Greeks. Their symbols for the whole numbers are familiar to
us. To calculate with whole numbers, they used various forms of the abacus.
Calculations were also done with the fingers and with the aid of specially
prepared tables.
Roman fractions were in base 12. Special symbols and words were used
fot lll2,2ll2,.. .,llll2, 1124, 1136, ll48,l/96,. . .. The origin of the base
12 may be tJre relation of the lunar month to the year. The unit of weight,
incidcntalln was the a,r; one twelfth of this was the uncia, from which we get
our ounce and inch.
The principal use of arithmetic and geometry by the Romans was in
surveying, to fix city boundaries and plots of land for homes and temples.
Surveyors could calculate most of the quantities they sought using only
simple instruments and congruent triangles.
We do owe to the Romans an improvement in the calender. Up to the
time ofJulius Caesar ( 100-44 B.c.), the basic Roman year had 12 months,
totalling 355 days. An intercalary month of 22 or 23 days was used every
other year so that tlre average year consisted of 366 l/4 days. To improve
this calendar, Caesar called in Sosigenes, an Ale:<andrian, who advised a
THE DEMISE OF TIIE GREEK CTVILIZATION I79
year of 365 days and a leap year every 4 years. The Julian calendar was
adopted in 45 s.c.
From about 50 r.c. on, the Romans wrote their own technical books;
all of the basic material, however, was taken from Greek sources' The most
famous of these technical works isvitruvius' ten books on architecture, which
date from 14 a.c. Here, too, the material is Greek. Peculiarly, Vitruvius says
that the three greatest mathematical discoveries are the 3, 4, 5 right triangle,
the irrationaliiy of the diagonal of the unit square, and the Archimedean
solution of the crown problem. He does give other liacts involving mathe-
matics, such as the proportions of the parts of the ideal human body, some
harmonious arithmetical relationships, and arithmetic facts about the capac-
ities of catapults.
Amo"j the Romans the term "mathematics" came into disrepute
because thJastrologers were c alled matlumaticii, and astrology was condemned
by the Roman emperors. The emperor Diocletian ('l"o' 24$-316), distin-
guished between geometry and mathematics' The former was to be learned
Ind applied in the public service I but the "art of mathematics "-that is,
ast.oloja-was damnable and forbidden in its entirety. The " code of mathe-
matics-and evil deeds," the Roman law forbidding astrology, was also applied
in Europe during the Middle Ages. The Roman and christian emPerors
nonetheiess employed astrologers at their courts on the chance that thcre
might be some truth in their prophecies. The distinction between the terms
..geometer" lasted until well past the Renaissance.
..
rn'athematician " and
Even in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, "geometer" meant what
we mean by " mathematician."
The Romans were Practical People and they boasted of their practicdity'
They undertook and completed vast engineering Projects-viaducts, magni-
ficent roads that survive even today, bridges, public buildings, and land
surveys-but they refused to consider any ideas beyond the particular
applications they were making at the moment' The Roman attitude
"o.r"r"t"
toward maihematics is stated by Cicero: "The Greeks held the geometer in
the highest honor; accordingly, nothing made more brilliant Progres among
them ihan mathematics. But we have established as the limit of this art its
usefulness in measuring and counting."
The Roman emPerors did not suPPort mathematics as did the Ptolemys
of Egypt. Nor did the Romans understand pure science' Their failure to
a.""t"i mathematics is striking, because they ruled a worldwidc empire and
b"".r,,r" they did seek to solve Practical problems' The lesson one can learn
from the hisiory of the Romans is that people who scorn the highly theoretical
work of mathematicians and scientists and decry its usefulness are ignorant
of the manner in which important practical developments have arisen'
Let us turn to the role the Romans played in the political and military
history of Greece. After having secured control of central and northern Italy,
r80 TIIE DEMISE OF TIIE GREEK WORLD
they conquered the Greek cities in southern Italy and Sicily. (Archimedes,
we recall, contributed to the defense of Syracuse when the Romans attacked
the city and was killed by a Roman soldier.) The Romans conquered Greece
proper in 146 r.c., and Mesopotamia in 64 B.c. By intervening in the internal
strife in Egypt between Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemy dynasty, and her .
brother, Caesar managed to secure a hold on the country. In 47 n.c., Caesar

set fire to the Egyptian fleet riding at anchor in the harbor of Alexandria;
the fire spread to the city and burned the library. Two and a half centuries
of book-collecting and half a million manuscripts, which represented the
flower ofancient culture, were wiped out, Fortunately, an overflow of books
that could no longer be accommodated in the overcrowded library was by
this time stored in the temple of Serapis and these were not burned. Also,
Attalus III of Pergamum, who died in 133 8.c., had left his great collection
of bools to Rome. Mark Anthony gave this collection to Cleopatra and it
was added to the books in the temple. The total collection was once more
enormous.
The Romans returned at the death of Cleopatra in 3l r.c., and from
that time on controlled Egypt. Their interest in extending their political
power did not include spreading their culture. The subjugated areas became
colonies, from which great wealth was extracted by expropriation and
taxation. Since most of the Roman emperors were self-seekers, they ruined
every country they controlled. When uprisings occurred, as they did, for
example, in Alexandria, the Romans did not hesitate to starve and, when
finally victorious, to kill off thousands ofinhabitants.
The late history of the Roman Empire is also relevant. The Emperor
Theodosius (ruled 379-95) divided the extensive empire between his two
sons, Honorius, who was to rule Italy and western Europe, and Arcadius,
who was to rule Greece, Egypt, and the Near East. The western part was
conquered by the Goths in the fifth century e.o. and its subsequent history
belongs to that of medieval Europe. The eastern part, which included Egypt
(for a while), Greece, and what is now Turkey, preserved its independence
until it was conquered by the Turks in 1453. Since the Eastern Roman
Empire, known also as the Byzantine Empire, included Greece proper,
Greek culture and works were to some extent preserved.
From the standpoint of the history of mathematics, the rise of Christianity
had unfortunate consequences. Though the Christian leaders adopted many
Greek and Oriental myths and customs with the intent of making Christianity
more acceptable to converts, they opposed pagan learning and ridiculed
mathematics, astronomy, and physical sciencel Christians were forbidden to
contaminate themselves with Greek learning. Despite cruel persecution by
the Romans, Christianity spread and became so powerful that the emperor
Constantine (272-337) was obliged to adopt it as the official religion of the
Roman Empire. The Christians were now able to effect even greater
THE DEMISE OF THE GREEK CIVILIZATION I8I
destruction of Greek culture. The emperor Theodosius proscribed the pagan

religions and, in 392, ordered that the Greek temples be destroyed' Many of
thes'e were converted to churches, though often still adorned with Greek
sculpture. Pagans were attacked and murdered throughout the empire' The
fate of Hypatia, an Alexandrian mathematician of note and the daughter of
Theo, oi ilexandria, symbolizes the end of the era. Because she refused to
abandon the Greek religion, christian fanatics seized her in the streets of
Alexandria and tore her to Pieces.
Greekbookswereburnedbythethousands'IntheyearthatTheodosius
banned the pagan religions, the Christians destroyed the temple of Serapis,
which still ho.lrsed th. ot ly extensive collection of Greek works. It is estimated
that 300,000 manuscripts were destroyed. Many other works written on
parchment were expunged by the Christians so that they could use the
pa.chr.rert for their own writings. In 529 the Eastern Roman emperor
justinian closed all the Greek schools of philosophy, including Plato's
"A".de-y.
Many Greek scholars left the country and some-for example,
Simplicius-settled in Persia-
The final blow to Alexandria was the conquest of Egypt by the up-
surging Moslems in a.o. 640. The remaining books were destroyed on the
grol""J given by Omar, the Arab conqueror: " Either the books contain
ivh.t is i. th. io.u.r, in which case we do not have to read them, or they
contain the opposite of what is in the Koran, in which case we must not read
them." And so for six months the baths of Alexandria were heated by burning
rolls of parchment.
After the capture of Alexandria by the Mohammedans, the majority of
the scholars migrated to Constantinople, which had become the capital of
the Eastern Ro-at Empire. Though no activity along the lines of Greek
thought could flourish in the unfriendly Christian atmosphere of Byzantium,
this iux of scholars and their works to comparative safety increased the
treasury of knowledge that was to reach Europe eight hundred years later'
It is perhaps pointless to contemplate what might have been' But one
cannot heip obse.re that the Alexandrian Greek civilization ended its active
scientific life on the threshold of the modern age. It had the unusual com-
bination oftheoretical and practical interests that proved so fertile a thousand
years later. Until the last fiw centuries of its existence, it enjoyed freedom of
ihought, which is also essential to a flourishing culture' And it tackled and
madJ major advances in several fields that were to become all-important in
the Renaissance: quantitative plane and solid geometry; trigonometry;
algebra; calculus I and astronomY.
It has often been said that man proposes and God disposes' It is more
accurate to say of the Greeks that God proposed them and man disposed of
them. The Gieek mathematicians were wiped out. But the fruits of their
work did reach Europe in a way we have yet to relate'
r82 IIIE DETfiTE OF THE ORE:EX, WORIJ
BibliograplV
Cajori, Florian: A Histoty oJ Matlanati*,IVIacmillan, 1919, pp.63-68.
Gibbon, Edward: Tlu Dulitu and Fall of tlu Rnmaa Emlhc (maay editiors), Chaps.
20"21,29,29,92,9+.
Parsons, Edward Alexandcr: Ihr Ahxat drias Librury, Thrc Elsevici Pfess, 1952.
9
The Mathematics
of the Hindus and Arabs
As the sun eclipses the stars by its brilliancy, so the man of
knowledge will eclipae the fame of others in assemblies of the
people if he propotes algebraic problems, and still more if he
SOlveS tJrem, BRAHIIrIGUPTA
l. Early Hindu Mathematics

The successors of the Greels in the history of mathematics were the Hindus
of India. Though Hindu mathematics became significant only after it was
influenced by Greek achievements, there were earlier, indigenous develop-
ments that are worth noting.
The Hindu civilization dates back to at least 2000 g'c' but as far as we
know there w,N no mathematics prior to 800 n.c. During the Sulvasitra
period, from 800 s.c. to l.o. 2(X), the Hindus did produce somc primitive
mathematics. There were no separate mathematical documents but a few
facts can be gleaned from other writings and from coins and inscriptions.
From about the third century u'c., number symbols appear, which
varied considerably from one century to another' Typical are the Brahmi
symbols:
Itk?52a o r x o {
---l 234 567891020304050@.
What is significant in this set is a seParate, single symbol for each numbcr
from I to 9. There was no zero and no positional notation as yet' The wisdom
of using separate symbols was undoubtedly not foreseen by this mathe-
matically iliiterate people; the practice may have arisen from using the first
letters of the words for these numbers.
Among the religious writings was a class called sulvasitras (rules of the
cord), corrlining instructions for the construction of altars' In one of the
y'f is
Sulvasfitras of the fourth or fifth century r.c' an approximation to
r83
r84 THE MATTIEMATICS OF THE HINDUS AND ARABS
given, but there is no indication that it is just an approximation. Almost

nothing else is known about the arithmetic of the period.
The geometry of this ancient Hindu period is somewhat better known.
The rules contained in the Sulvasltras prescribed conditions for the shapes
and sizes of altars. The three shapes most commonly used were square, circle,
and semicircle; and no matter which of these shapes was used, the areas had
to be the same. Ilence the Hindus had to construct circles equal in area to
the squares, or twice as large so that the semicircle could be used. Another
shape used was an isosceles trapezoid; here it was permissible to use a similar
shape. Hence additional geometrical problems were involved in constructing
the similar figure.
In designing the permiSsible altars the Hindus got to know a few basic
geometrical facts, such as the Pythagorean theorem, in the form: ,,The
diagonal ofan oblong [rectangle] produces by itselfboth the areas which the
two sides ofthe oblong produce separately." In general, the geometry of this
period consisted of a disconnected set of approximate, verbal rules for areas
and volumes. Apastamba (4th or 5th cent. B.c.) gave a construction for a
circle equal in area to a square which, in effect, used the value of 3.0g for zr;
but he thought the construction was exact. In all of the geometry of this
early period there were no proofs; the rules were empirical.
2. Hindu Arithmetic and Algebra of the Period A.D. 200-1200

The second period of Hindu mathematics, the high period, may be roughly
dated from about e.o. 200 to 1200. During the first part of this period, the
civilization at Alexandria definitely influenced the Hindus. Vardhamihira
(c.500), an astronomer, says, "The Greeks, though impure [anyone having
a different faith is impure], must be honored, since they were trained in the
sciences and therein excelled others. What, then, are we to say of a Brahman
if he combines with his purity the height of science?,, The geometry of the
Hindus was certainly Greek, but they did have a special gift for arithmetic.
As to algebra, they may have borrowed from Alexandria and possibly
directly from Babylonia; but here, too, they went far on their own. India
was also somewhat indebted to China.
The most important mathematicians of the second period are Aryabhata
(b,476), Brahmagupta (b. 598), Mahdvira (9th cent.), and Bhdskara
(b. t 114). Most of their work and that of Hindu mathematicians generally
was motivated by astronomy and astrology. In fact, there were no separate
mathematical texts; the mathematical material is presented in chapters of
worls on astronomy.
The Hindu methods of writing numbers up to A.D. 600 were numerous
and even included using words or syllables for number symbols. By 600 they
reverted to the older Brahmi symbols, though the precise form of these
ARTTHMETTC AND ALCEBRA, A.D. 2OO-I2OO I85
symbols changed throughout the period. Positional notation in base 10,

which had been in limited uso for about a hundred years, now became
standard. Also, the zero, which the Alexandrian Gfeeks had earlier used only
to denote the absence of a number, was tleated as a complete number'
Mahivira says that multiplication of a number by 0 gives 0 and that sub'
tracting 0 does not diminish a number. He also says, however, that a number
divideJ by 0 remains unchanged. Bhdskara, in talking about a fraction
whose denominator is 0, says that this fraction remains the same though
much be added and subtracted, just as no change takes place in the immut-
able Deity when worlds are created and destroyed' A number divided by
zero, he adds, is termed an infinite quantity.
For fractions in astronomy, the Hindus used sexagesimal positional
notation. For other Purposes they used a ratio of integers but without the
2
bar, thus: f.
The arithmetic operations of the Hindus were much like ours' For
example, Mahavira gives our rule for division by a fraction: Invert and
multiply.
ih" Hirrdrs introduced negative numbers to represent debts; in such
situations, positive numbers represented assets. The first known use is by
Brahmagupta about 628; he also states the rules for the four operations with
negative numbers. Bhiskara points out that the square root of a positive
,rrrtb.. is twofold, positive and negative. He brings up the matter of the
square root of a negative number but says that there is no square root
blcu,rse a negative number is not a square. No definitions, axioms, or
theorems are given.
The Hindus did not unreservedly accept negative numbers' Even
Bhiskara, while giving 50 and -5 as two solutions of a problem, says, "The
it
is inadequate; people do
second value is in this case not to be taken, for
not approve of negative solutions." However, negative numbers gained
accePtance slowly.
Th" Hit dw took another great step in arithmetic by facing uP to the
problem of irrational numbers; that is, they started to operate with these
rrrrmbers by correct procedures, which, though not Proven generally by
them, at least permitted useful conclusions to be drawn' For example,
Bhaskara says,
.-ferm the sum of two irrationals the greater surd; and twice
their product the lesser one. The sum and difference of them reckoned like
integers are so." He then shows how to add them, as follows: Given the
irrationals t/5 a"d t/-tZ,
{s + {a --'{@;IiTTffi : t/-zt : s\/2.
The general principle, in ournotation, is
(r) tfo + t/7 : (a+b) + 2l-ab.

186 THE MATHEMATTcs or rHE HTNDUS AND ARABs
We should note the phrase " reckoned like integers " in the above quotation.
Irrationals were treated as though they possessed the same properties as
integers. Thus if we had ihtegers c and d we would certainly write
(2) o*d:{GT7-Y:\/7-+-A4EA.
Now ilc : {a and d : {6, then (2) is exactly (l).
BhisLara also gives the following rule for the sum of two irrationals :
"The root of the quotient of the greater irrational divided by the lesser one
being increased by one; the sum being squared and multiplied by t}le
smallcr irational quantity is the sum of the two surd roots." This means,
for o<ample.
{3+,/r2:lU++r)'.s,
which yields 3fr. tte also gives rules for the multiplication, division, and
square rq)t of irrational expressions.
The Hindus were less sophisticated than the Greels in that they failed
to see the logical difficulties involved in the concept of irrational numbers.
Their interest in calculation caused them to overlook philosophic distinctions,
or distinctions based on principles that in Greek thought were fundamental.
But in blithely applying to irrationals procedures like those used for rationals,
they hclped mathematics progress. Moreover, their entire arithmetic was
completely independent of geometry.
The Hindus also made some progress in algebra. They used abbrevia-
tions of words and a few symbols to describe operations. As in Diophantus,
there was no symbol for addition; a dot over the subtrahend indicated sub-
traction; other operations were called for by key words or abbreviations;
thus rta from the word kdrana called for the square root of what followed.
For the unknowns, when more than one was involved, they had words that
denoted colors. The first one was called the unknown and the remaining
ones black, blue, yellow, and so forth. The initial letter of each word was
also used as a symbol. This symbolism, though not extensive, was enough to
classifr Hindu algebra as almost symbolic and certainly more so than
Diophantusl syncopated algebra. Problems and solutions were written in this
quasi-symbolic style. Only the steps were given; no reasons or proofs accom-
panied them.
The Hindus recognized that quadratic equations have two roots and
included negative roots as well as irrational roots. The three types of quad-
ratirs axz * bx : c, ax2 : bx + c, axz ! c : bx, a, D, c positive, separately
treated by Diophantus, were treated as one case pr2 + q, + r : 0, because
the Hindus allowed some coefficients to be negative. They used the method
of completing the square, which of course was not new with them. Since they
did not recognize square roots for negative numbers, they could not solve all
ARITHMETIC AND ALOEBRA, A.D. 2OO-I2OO I87
quadratics. Mahivira also solves *l+ + 2fr + 15 : x, which arises from

a verbal problem.
Inindeterminateequationst}reHindusadvancedbeyondDiophantus.
These equations arose in problems of astronomy; the solutions showed when
certain Jonstellations would appear in the heavens. The Hindus sought all
integral solutions, whereas Diophantus sought one rational solution. The
metilod of obtaining integral solutions of 4* + by : c, where a, b, and c are
positive integers, was introduced by Aryabhata and improved by his succes-
sors. Itis the same as the modern one. Let us consider a* * bY
: c'lf aandb
have a common factor m that does not divide c, then no integral solutions are
possible because the left side is divisible by n whereas the right side is not.
if a, b, and c have a common factor it is removed, and, in the light of the
pr""itg."-"rk, one need consider only the case where a and D are relatively
pri-". N"o* Euclid's algorithm for finding the greatest common divisor of
two integers a arrd b, with a > D, calls first for dividing D into a so .that
a : arb i r, whe.e a1 is the quotient and r is the remainder ' H.ence alb
:
ar * rlb. This can be ocPressed as
(3) alb : a, + rl(blr).
The second step in Euclid's algorithm is to divide r into D' Then &
: a,*t + tr
:
orblr a, + 4lr.If we insert this value of blti:;. (3), we can write
(4) !o: o, *
-++ Vii
az
The continuation of Euclid's algorithm leads to what is called a continued

fraction
al
5: at+-T'
or* Ga
which is also written as
all ar * ;_,I
,: ", +....
The process applies also when a < D. In this case a1 is zeto, and then the
pro"o* i, continued as before. For the case ofa and 6 integral, the continued
Ilaction terminates.
The fractions obtained by stopping with the first, second, third, and
generally zth quotient are called the first, second, third, and ath convergent,
iespectively. S:ince in the case of a and D integral the continued fraction
terminates, there is a convergent that just precedes the e,(act expression for
a!b.lf plq is the value of this convergent, then one can show that
aq-bi:tl.
I8B THE MATHEMATIoS oF THE IIINDUS AND ARABS
Let us consider the positive value. We can now return to our original indeter-
minate equation, and since aq - bp : I we can write
ax+bg:c(aq-b?)
and by rearranging terms obtain
cq-x:y+cp.
ba
If we let , represent each of these fractions we have
(s) tc:cq-bt and, g:at-cp.
We may now assign integral values to l, and since all the other quantities are
integers, we thereby obtain integral values of x and y. The minor modifica-
tions to take care of the cases where aq - bp: -1, or when the original
equation is ax - b! : c, a:re readily devised. Brahmagupta gave solution (5),
though not of course in terms ofgeneral letters a, b, p, and q.
The Hindus also worked with indeterminate quadratic equations. They
solved the type
Y2:ax2+1, d not a perfect square,
and recognized that this type was fundamental in treating

cgz:ax2+b.
The methods involved are too specialized to warrant consideration here.
It is noteworthy that they found pleasure in many mathematical
problems and stated them in fanciful or verse form, or in some historical
context, to please and attract people. The original reason for doing so may
have been to aid the memory, because the old Brahman practice was to
trust to memory and avoid writing things down.
Algebra was applied to the usual commercial problems: the calculation
ofinterest, discount, division ofthe profits ofa partnership, and the allocation
of shares in an estate; but astronomy was the main application.
3. Hindu Geometry and Trigonometry of the Period e.o.200-1200

Geometry during this period showed no notable advances; it consisted of
formulas (correct and incorrect) for areas and volumes. Many of these, such
as Heron's formula for the area of a triangle and Ptolemy's theorem, came
from the Alexandrian Greeks. Sometimes the Hindus were aware that a
formula was only approximately correct and sometimes they were not. Their
values of z were generally inaccurate; y'-l0 *a. commonly used, though the
better value of 3.1416 appears at times. For the area of any quadrilateral
they gave the formula \/W, where s is half the
GEOMETRY AND TRIGONOMETRY, A.D. 2OO-I2OO I89
perimeter arrd a, b, c, and d are the sides' a formula which is correct only
for quadrilaterals inscribed in circles. They offered no geometric proofs l on
the whole they cared little for geometry.
In trigonometry the Hindus made a few minor advances. Ptolemy had
used the chords of arcs, calculated on the basis of 120 units in the diameter
of a circle. Varihamihira used 120 units for the radius. Hence Ptolemy's
table olchords became for him a table ofhalfchords, but still associated with
the full arc. Aryabhata then made two changes. First he associated the half
chord with half of the arc of the full chord ; this Hindu notion of sine was
used by all later Hindu mathematicians. Secondly, he introduced a radius of
3438 units. This number comes from assigning 360'60 units (the number of
minutes) to the circumference of a circle and using C : 2rr, with z approxi-
mated by 3.14. Thus in Aryabhata's scheme the sine of an arc of 30', that is,
the length of the half chord corresponding to an arc of 30o, was 1719. While
the Hindus used the equivalent of our cosine, they more often used the sine
of the complementary arc. They also used the notion of versed sine, or
I- cosine.
Since the radius of a circle now contained 3438 units, Ptolemy's values
for the chords were no longer suitable, and the Hindus recomputed a table of
half chords, starting from the fact that the half chord corresponding to an
arc of90" is 3438 and the hall chord corresponding to an arc of30'is 1719.
Then, by using rigonometric identities such as Ptolemy had established,
they were able to calculate the half chords of arcs at intervals of 3"45'. This
angle resulted from dividing each quadrant of 90' into 24 patts. It is note-
worthy that they used the identities in algebraic form, unlike the geometrical
arguments of Ptolemy, and made arithmetic calculations on the basis of the
algebraic relations. Their practice was, in principle, like ours.
The motivation for the trigonometry was astronomy, of which prac-
tically all of Hindu trigonometry was a by-product. Standard astronomical
works included the Sfirga Siddhlnta (System of the Sun, 4th cent') and the
Argabhatiya of Aryabhata (6th cent.). The major work was the Siddhantu
Siromani (Diadem of an Astronomical System) written by BhEskara in 1150.
Two chapters of this work are titled Lilaodtt (The Beautiful) and Vija'ganita
(Root Extraction) ; these are devoted to arithmetic and algebra.
Though astronomy was a primary interest in the period after e.o. 200,
the Hindus made no significant progress. They took over a minor Hellenistic
activity in arithmetical astronomy (of Babylonian origin), which predicts
planetary and lunar positions by extrapolation from observational data.
Even the Hindu words for center, minute, and other terms were just the
Greek words transliterated. The Hindus were only slightly concerned with
the geometrical theory of deferent and epicycle, though they did teach the
sphericity of the earth.
About the year 1200 scientific activity in India declined and progress
I9O TIIE MATHEMATICS OF THE HINDUS AND ARABS
in mathematics ceased. After the British conquered India in the eighteenth

century, a few Indian scholars went to England to study and on their return
did initiate some research. However, this modern activity is part of European
mathematics.
As our survey indicates, the Hindus were interested in and contributed
to the arithmetical and computational activities of mathematics rather than
to the deductive patterns. Their name for mathemati cs was gaaita, which
means " the science of calculation." There is much good procedure and
technical facility, but no evidence that they considered proofat all. They had
rules, but apparently no logical scruples. Moreover, no general methods or
new viewpoints were arrived at in any area of mathematics,
It is liairly certain that the Hindus did not appreciate the significance of
their own contributions. The few good ideas they had, such as separate
symbols for the numbers from I to 9, the conversion to base 10, and negative
numbers, were introduced casually with no realization that they were
valuable innovations. They were not sensitive to mathematical values. Along
with the ideas they themselves advanced, they accepted and incorporated
the crudest ideas of the Eg'yptians and Babylonians. The Persian historian
al-Bir0ni (973-1048) says of the Hindus, "I can only compare their mathe-
matical and astronomical literature. . . to a mixture of pearl shells and sour
dates, or of pearl and dung, or of costly crystals and common pebbles. Both
kinds of things are equal in their eyes, since they cannot raise themselves to
the methods of a strictly scientific deduction."
4. The Arabs
Thus far the Arab role in the history of mathematics has been to deliver the
final blow to the Alexandrian civilization. Before starting their conquests,
they had been nomads occupying the region of modern Arabia. They were
stirred to activity and unity by Mohammed, and less than a century after his
death in 632, had conquered lands from India to Spain, including North
Africa and southern Italy. In 755 the Arab empire split into two independent
kingdoms, the eastern part having its capital at Bagdad and the western one
at Cordova in Spain.
Their conquests completed, the former nomads settled down to build a
civilization and a culture. Rather quickly the Arabs became interested in the
arts and sciences. Both centers attracted scientists and supported tleir work,
though Bagdad proved to be the greater; an academy, a library, and an
astronomical observatory were established there.
The cultural resources available to the Arabs were considerable. They
invited Hindu scientists to settle in Bagdad. When Justinian closed plato,s
Academy in e.o. 529, many of its Greek scholars went to penia, and the
Greek learning that flourished there became, a century later, part of
ARABIC ARTTHUETIC AND ALGEBRA I9I
the Arab world. The Arabs also established contacts with the Greels of
the independent Byzantine Empire; in fact the Arab caliphs bought Greek
manuscripts from the Byzantines. Egypt, the center of Greek learning in the
Alexandrian period, had been conquered by the Arabs, so the learning that
survived there contributed to the activity in the Arab empire. The Syrian
schools of Antioch, Emesa, and Damascus and the school of Nestorian
Christians at Edessa, which had become the chief repositories in the Near
East of Greek works after the destruction of Alexandria in 640, and christian
monasteries in the Near East, which also possessed these works, all came under
Arab rule. Thus the Arabs had control over, or access to, the men and culture
of the Byzantine Empire, Egypt, Syria, Persia, and the lands liarther east,
including India.
One speaks of Arabic mathematics, but it was Arabic in language
primarily. Most of the scholars were Greets, Christians, Persians, and Jews'
Ho*.r"., it is to the credit of the Arabs that after the period of conquest,
which was marked by religious fanaticism, they were liberal to other peoples
and sects and the infidels were able to function freely'
Fundamentally, what the Arabs possessed was Greek knowledge ob-
tained directly from Greek manuscripts or from Syrian and Hebrew versions'
All the major works became accessible to them. They obtained a copy of
Fiuclid,s Ehmcnlr from the Byzantines about 800 and translated it into Arabic.
Ptolemy's Matlumati.cal Syntaxis was translated into Arabic in 827 and to the
Arabs became a preeminent, almost divine book; it became known as the
Almagest, meaning the greatest work. They also translated Ptolemy's Tcfia-
bibtos and,this work on astrology was popular among them. In the course of
time the works of Aristotle, Apollonius, Archimedes, Heron, Diophantus, and
of the Hindus became accessible in Arabic. The Arabs then improved the
translations and made commentaries. It is these translations, some still
extant, that became available to Europe later, the Greek originals having
been lost. Until 1300 the Arab civilization was dynamic and its learning
became widespread.
5. Arabic Arithmetic and Algebra

When the Arabs were still nomads, they had words for numbers but no
symbols. They took over and improved the Hindu number symbols and the
idea of positional notation. They used these number symbols for whole
numbers and common fractions (adding a bar to the Hindu scheme) in their
mathematical texts and Arabic alphabetic numerals, on the Greck Pattern'
for astronomical texts. For astronomy they used the sexagesimal fractions in
imitation of Ptolemy.
Like the Hindus, the Arabs worked freely with irrationals' In fact,
Omar Khayyam (1O+B?-I122) and Nasir-Eddin (1201-74) clearly state that
I92 THE MATHEMATICS Or THE HTNDUS AND ARABS
every ratio of magnitudes, whether commensurable or incommensurable,

may be called a number, a statement Newton felt obliged to reaffirm in his
Uniaersal Arithmetic of 17O7. The Arabs took over the operations with irra-
tional numbers that the Hindus had introduced, and such transformations
ut t/ a% : a\fb and. { A : {o t/i becarne common.
In arithmetic the Arabs took one step backward. Though they were
familiar with negative numbers and the rules for operating with them
through the work of the Hindus, they rejected negative numbers.
To algebra the Arabs contributed first of all the name. The word
"algebra" comes from a book written in 830 by the astronomer Mohammed
ibn Musa al-Khowirizmi (c. 825), titled, Al-jabr w'al muqdbala. The word
al-jabr meant " restoring," in this context, restoring the balance in an equa-
tion by placing on one side of an equation a term that has been removed
from the other; thus if -7 is removed from x2 -7:3, the balance is
restored by writing xz : 7 * 3. Al' muqdbala meant " simplification," as
by combining 3x and. 4x into 7r or by subtracting equal terms from both
sides of an equation. Al-jabr also came to mean " bonesetter," that is, a
restorer of broken bones. When the Moors brought the word into Spain, it
became algebrista and meant " bonesetter." At one time it was not uncom-
mon in Spain to see a sign "Algebrista y Sangrador " (bonesetter and blood-
Ietter) over the entrance to a barbershop because barbers at that time and
even centuries later administered the simpler medical treatments. In
sixteenth-century ltaly, algebra meant the art of bonesetting. When
al-KhowArizmi's book was first translated into Latin in the twelfth century,
the title was rendered as Ludus algebrae et almucgrabalaeque, though other titles
were also used. The name of the subject was finally shortened to algebra.
The algebra of al-Khowdrizmi is founded on Brahmagupta's work but
also shows Babylonian and Greek influences. Al-KhowArizmi performs some
operations just as Diophantus does. For example, in equations involving
several unknowns, he reduces to one unknown and then solves. Diophantus
refers to his unknown s as the side when s2 also occurs; so does al-KhowArizmi.
Al-KhowArizmi calls the square of the unknown " power," which is Dio-
phantus' word. He also uses, as did Diophantus, special names for the powers
of the unknown. The unknown he refers to as the "thing" or the "root"
(of a plant), whence our term root. Al-Karkhi ofBagdad (died r. 1029), who
wrote a superior Arabic algebra text in the early part ofthe eleventh century,
certainly follows the Greeks and especially Diophantus. However, the Arabs
did not use symbolism. Their algebra is entirely rhetorical and, in this
respect, a step backward, as compared with the Hindus and even Diophantus.
In his algebra al-KhowArizmi gives the product of (x + a) and (y + b).
He shows how to add and subtract terms from an expression of the form
axz + bx * r. He solves linear and quadratic equations, but keeps the six
separate forms, such as a*2 : bx, a*2 : c, ax2 * c : bx, ax2 q bx : cr and,
ARABIC ARITHMETIC AND ALGEBRA r93
HAD
II I
IV III
Figure 9.I
axz : bx + ,, so that a, b, and d are always positive. This avoids negative

numbers standing alone and the subtraction of quantities that may be larger
than the minuend. In this practice of using the separate forms, al-Khowirizmi
follows Diophantus. Al-Khowirizmi recognizes that there can be two roots
of quadratics, but gives only the real positive roots, which can be irrational'
Some writers give both positive and negative roots.
One example of a quadratic treated by al-KhowArizmi reads as follows:
"A square and ten of its roots are equal to nine and thirty dirhems, that is
you add ten roots to one square, the sum is equal to nine and thirty." He
gives the solution thus : " Take half the number of roots, that is, in this case
five, then multiply this by itself and the result is five and twenty. Add this to
the nine and thirty, which gives sixty-four; take the square root, or eight, and
subtract from it half the number of roots' namely five, and there remains
three. This is the root." The solution is exactly what the process of com-
pleting the square calls for.
Though the Arabs gave algebraic solutions of quadratic equations, they
explained or justified their processes geometrically. Undoubtedly they were
influenced by the Greek reliance upon geometrical algebra; while they
arithmetized the processes, they must have believed that the proof had to be
made geometrically. Thus to solve the equation, which is *' + l0l : 39,
al-KhowArizmi gives the following geometrical method. Let AB (Fig. 9.1)
represent the value of the unknown x. Construct the square ABCD, Prcduce
DA to H and DC to F so that AH : CF : 5, which is one-half of the coem-
cient of x. Complete the square ot DH and DF. Then the areas I, II, and III
are N2, 5x, and 5r, respectively. The sum of these is the left side of the equa-
tion. To both sides \ile now add area IV, which is 25. Hence the entire
square is 39 + 25 or 64 and its side must be 8. Then AB or AD is 8 - 5 or 3.
This is the value of x. The geometric argument rests on Proposition 4 of
Book II of the Elements.
The Arabs solved some cubics algebraically and gave a geometrical
explanation in the manner just illustrated for quadratics. This was done, for
example, by Tnbit ibn Qorra (836-901), a Pagan of Bagdad, who was also
a physician, philosopher, and astronomer, and by the Egyptian al-Hasan ibn
al-Haitham, known generally as Alhazen (c.961-1039). As for the general
r94 THE MATHEMAflCIT OF THE HINDI'II AND ARABS
figurc 9.2
cubic, Omar Khayyam believed this could be solved only geometrically, by

using conic sections. We shall illustrate the method he used in his Algebru
(c. 1079) to solve some types of cubics by considering one of the simpler cases
hc treats, namely, f + Bx : C, where B and, C are positive.
Khayyam writes the equation as *3 + bzx : b2c wherein b2 : B and,
bzc: C. Hc then constructs a parabola (Fig.9.2), whose latus rectum is D.
This quantity does indeed fx the parabola, and though the curve itself
caDnot bc construct€d with straightedge and compass, as many points as
dcsircd can be so constructed. He constructs next the semicircle on the
dierneter QR which has length c. Then the intersection P ofthe parabola and
scmicircle dctermincs the perpendicular PS, and QS is the solution of the
cubic equation.
Khayyam's proof is purely synthetic. From the geometric property
of the parabola as given in Apollonius (or as we can see from the equation
i:bc)
(6) xz : b.PS
or
(7)
bx
.r PS
Now consider the right triangle QPR. The altitude PS is the mean propor-
tional bctween Q.9 and ^9R. Hence
(8)
* PS
PS c:x
From (7) and (8) we have
b PS
(e)
x c-x
But from (7)
PS:;.-2
If we substitute this value of PS in (9) we see that x satisfies the equation
xa + bzx : bzc.
Khayyam also solved the type xs + a*2 = 6s, whose roots are deter-
ARABTC OEOMETRY AND TRTOONOMETRY I95
mined by the intersection of a hyperbola and a patabola, and the type

xs !. @c2 I bzx : D'c, whose roots are determined by the intersection of an
ellipse and a hyperbola. He also solved one quartic, (100 - .r')(10 - x)' :
8100, the roots of which are determined by the intenection of a hyperbola
and a circle. He gives only positive roots.
The solution of cubic equations by using intersecting conics is the
greatest Arab steP in algebra. The mathematics is of precisely the same sort
as the Greek geometrical algebra, though it uses conic sections. The goal
sfiould be an arithmetic answer, but the Arabs could obtain this only by
measuring the final length representing x. In this work the influence of
Greek geometry is clear.
The Arabs also solved indeterminate equations of the second and third
degree. Acouple of writers stated and tried to Prove that d + ls : zs
cannot be solved integrally. They also gave the sums of the first, second,
third, and fourth powers of the first z natural numbers.
6. Arabic Geometry and Trigonometry

Arabic geometry was influenced mainly by Euclid, Archimedes, and Heron'
The Arabs did make critical commentaries of Euclid's Ehnc,.b, which is
surprising because it shows appreciation of rigor despite their usual indiffer-
to it in algebra. These commentaries included work on the parallel
".r.i
axiom, which we shall consider later (ChaP.36). They are valuable less for
what they have to offer in the way of new results or new proofs than for the
information they supply about the Greek manuscripts the Arabs had at their
disposal that have since been lost. One new problem, which became popular
in ienaissance Europe, was explored by the Persian Abt'l-WefA or Albuzjani
(940-98) : constructions with a straightedge and a fixed circle (i.c., fxed
compass opening).
The Arabs made a little progress in trigonometry- Theirs, Iike the
Hindus', is arithmetical, rather than geometric as in Hipparchus and
Ptolemy. Thus, to calculate some cosine values from sine values they used
an identity such as sin'I + cosa I : I and algebraic steps. Likc the
Hindus, they used sines ofarcs rather than chords ofdouble the arcs, though
(as in the Hindu work) the number of units in the sine or half chord depends
upon the number of units taken for the radius. Tnbit ibn Qorra and the
..troro-", al-BattAni (c. 858-929) introduced this use of sines among the
Arabs,
Arab astronomers introduced what we call the tangent and cotangent
ratios, but as lines containing a number ofunits,just as the sine ofan arc was
a length containing a number of units. These two ratios are to be found in
the work of al-BattAni. Abfr'I-WefA introduced the secant and cosecant as
lengths in a work on astronomy. He also computed tables of sines and
r96 THE MATHEMATICS OF THE HINDUS AND ARABS
tangents for every 10 minutes of angles. Al-Birtrni gave the law of sines
for plane triangles and a proof.
The systematization of plane and spherical trigonometry in a work
independent of astronomy was achieved by Nasir-Eddin in his Treatise on tlu
Quadrilabral. This work contains six fundamental formulas for the solution
ofright spherical triangles and shows how to solve more general triangles by
what we now call the polar triangle. Unfortunately the Europeans did not
know Nasir's work until about 1450; until then trigonometry remained, as it
had been from its inception, an appendage of astronomy, in the texts as well
as in application.
The Arab scientific effort, though not original, was extensive; however,
we cannot do more here than note the continuation of lines inaugurated by
the Greels. Unlike the Hindus, the Arabs did take over Ptolemy's astronomy.
Astronomy was emphasized so that the hours for prayers could be accurately
known and so that Arabs throughout the vast empire could face Mecca
during prayers. Istronomical tables were enlarged i instruments were im-
proved; and observatories were built and used. As in India, practically all
mathematicians were primarily astronomers. Astrology also played a big role
in stimulating work in astronomy and, therefore, mathematics,
Another science pursued by the Arabs was optics. Alhazen, who was a
physicist as well as a mathematician, wrote the great treatise Kitab al-manazer
or Treailrg of Optics, which exercised an enormous influence. In it he stated
the full law ofreflection, including the fact that the incident ray, the reflected
ray, and the normal to the reflecting surface all lie in one plane. But, like
Ptolemy, he did not succeed in finding the law for the angle of refraction,
despite much effort and experimentation. He discussed spherical and
parabolic mirrors, lenses, the camera obscura, and vision. Optics was a
favorite subject with the Arabs because it lent itself to occult and mystic
thoughts. However, they made no important original contributions.
The Arab uses of mathematics were of the sort we have encountered
before. Astronomy, astrology, optics, and medicine (through astrology)
required it, though some of the algebra, as one of the Arab mathematicians
put it, was "most needed in problems of distribution, inheritance, partner-
ship, land measurement. . . ." Mathematics was studied by the Arabs mainly
to further the few sciences they pursued, not for its own sake. Nor did they
study science for its own sake. They were not interested in the Greek goal of
understanding the mathematical design of nature or in comprehending
God's ways, as were the medieval Europeans. The Arab objective, new in the
history of science, was power over nature. They thought they could achieve
that power through alchemy, magic, and astrology, which were an integral
part of their scientific eflort. This objective was taken up later by more
critical minds, who could distinguish science from pseudoscience and were
more profound in their approach.
r 3oo r97
The Arabs made no significant advance in mathematics. What they did

was absorb Greek and Hindu mathematics, preserve it, and, ultimately'
through events we have yet to look into, transmit it to Europe. Arab activity
reached its peak about the year 1000. Between 1I00 and 1300 the Christian
attacks in the Crusades weakened the eastern Arabs. Subsequently, their
territory was overrun and conquered by the Mongols; after 1258 the
caliphate at Bagdad ceased to exist. Further destruction by the Tartars under
Tamcrlane just about wiped out this Arab civilization, though a bit of
mathematical work was done there after the Tartar invasion. In Spain the
Arabs were constantly attacked and finally conquered in 1492 by the
Christians; this ended the mathematical and scientific activity in that region.
7. Mathematics circa 1300

Though the mathematical work of the Hindus and Arabs was not brilliant,
it did bring about some changes in the content and character of mathematics
that were material for the future ofthe subject. Positional notation in base l0
(using special number symbols for the quantities from I to 9 and zero as a
number), the introduction ofnegative numbers, and the free use ofirrationals
as numbers not only extended arithmetic vastly but paved the way for a
more significant algebra, an algebra in which letters and operations could
apply to a far broader class of numbers.
Both peoples worked with equations, determinate and indeterminate,
on an arithmetic rather than a geometric basis. Though algebra, aS initiated
by the Egyptians and Babylonians, was arithmetically grounded, the
Greeks had subverted it by requiring a geometric basis. Hence the Hindu
and Arabic work not only restored algebra to its proper foundation but even
advanced the art in several ways. The Hindus used more symbolism and
made progress in indeterminate equations, while the Arabs ventured further
in the subject of third degree equations, though Khayyam's work still relied
upon geometry.
Euclidean geometry was not furthered but trigonometry was. The
introduction ofthe sine or half chord did prove to be a technical advantage.
The arithmetical or algebraic technique for handling identities and for
calculation in trigonometry was an expeditious step; and the segregation of
trigonometric knowledge from astronomy revealed a more broadly applicable
science.
Two developments occurred that were significant for the forthcoming
recognition that algebra is coextensive with geometry. The acceptance of
irrational numbers made it possible to assign numerical values to all line
segments and two- and three-dimensional figures, that is, to express lengths,
areas, and volumes by numbers. Moreover, the Arab Practice of solving
equations algebraically while justi$'ing the processes by means of a geometric
rg8 rHE MATHEMATTCS or THE HTNDUS AND ARABS
reprcsentation exhibited the parallelism of the two subjects. The fuller

development of that parallelism was to lead to analytic geometry.
Perhaps most interesting is the Hindus' and Arabs' self-contradictory
concept of mathematics. Both worked freely in arithmetic and algebra and
yet did not concern themselves at all with the notion of proof. That the
Egyptians and Babylonians were content to accept their few arithmetic and
geometric rules on an empirical basis is not surprising; this is a natural basis
for almost all human knowledge. But the Hindus and Arabs were aware of
the totally new concept of mathematical proof promulgated by the Greeks.
The Hindu behavior can be somewhat rationalized; though they did indeed
possess some knowledge of the classic Greek works, they paid them little
attention and followed primarily the Alexandrian Greek treatment of arith-
metic and algebra. Even this preference for one kind of mathematics over
another raises a question. But the Arabs were fully aware of Greek geometry
and even made critical studies of Euclid and other Greek authors. Moreover,
conditions for the pursuit of pure science were Iiavorable over a period of
scveral centuries, so that the pressure to produce practically useful results
need not have caused mathematicians to sacri.fice proof for immediate utility,
How could both peoples have treated the two areas of mathematics so
differently from the Greeks ?
There are nrunerous possible answers. Both civilizations were on the
whole uncritical, despite the Arabic commentaries on Euclid. Hence they
may have been content to take mathematics as they found it; that is, geom-
etry was to be deductive but arithmetic and algebra could be empirical or
heuristic. A second possibility is that both of these peoples-more likely, the
Arabs-recognized the widely different standards for geometry as opposed
to aritlrmetic and algebra but did not see how to supply a logical foundation
for arithmetic. One fact that seems to support such an explanation is that
the Arabs did at least explain their solution of quadratics by giving the
geometric basis.
There are other possible explanations. Both the Hindus and Arabs
favored arithmetic, algebra, and the algebraic formulation of and operation
with trigonometric relationships. This predisposition may bespeak a different
mentality or it may reflect a response to the needs of the civilizations. Both
of these civilizations were practically oriented and, as we have had occasion
to note in connection with the Alexandrian Greeks, practical needs do call
for quantitative results, which are supplied by arithmetic and algebra. One
bit of evidence favoring the thesis that different mentalities were involved is
the reaction of the Europeans to the very same mathematical heritage which
the Hindus and Arabs received. As we shall see, the Europeans were far
more troubled by the disparate states of arithmetic and geometry.
In the absence of any exhaustive and definitive study $,e must take the
position that the Hindus and Arabs were conscious of the precarious basis for
BIBLIOCRAPI{Y I99
arithmetic and algebra but had the audacity, reinforced by practical needs,
to develop these branches. Though they undoubtedly did not appreciate
what they were accomplishing, they took the only course mathematical
innovation can purrue. New ideas can come about only by the free and bold
pursuit ofheuristic and intuitive insights. The logical justification and correc-
tilr" -.ur.r..r, should the latter be needed, can be brought into play only
when there is something to logicize. Hindu and Arab venturesomeness
brought arithmetic and algebra to the fore once again and placed it almost
on a par with geometry.
Two independent traditions or concePts of mathematics had now be-
come established: on the one hand, the logical deductive body of knowledge
that the Greeks established, which served the larger purpose of under-
standing nature; and on the other, the empirically grounded, practically
oriented mathematics founded by the Egyptians and Babylonians, resus-
citated by some of the Alexandrian Greeks, and extended by the Hindus and
Arabs. The one favored geometry and the other arithmetic and algebra' Both
traditions and both goals were to continue to oPerate.
Bibliographg
Ball, W. W. R, : .d S/rlrt Account of ttu Hbtory of Matlumaties, Dover (reprint)r 1960,
Chap. 9.
'Berry, Arthur: A Short Histnry of Astrorumtr, Dover (reprint), 1961, pp' 7683'
Boyer, Carl B.: A History of Mathcmatits, Jobn Wiley and Sons, 1968, Chapo' l2-I3'
Cajori, Florian: A History of Matlumatics, Macmillan, l9l9' pp. 83-l 12'
Cantor, Moritz: Matlurnati*,2nd ed., B. G' Tcubner,
Vorlesungen ilbet Gcschichk der
1894, Johnson Reprint Corp', 1965, Vol' l, Chaps. 28-30, 32-37.
Coolidge, Julian L.: Thc Matlumatics of Grcat Amakws, Dover (reprint), 1963,
Chap. 2.
Datta, 8., and A. N. Sirrgh: History of Hindu Matlumatics,2 vols., Asia Publishing
House (reprint), 1962.
Dreyer, J. L.E.:AHistoryof Aslrorcng from Thalcs to Kcphr, flover (reprint), 1953,
Chap. I l.
Karpinski, L, C.: Robat of Ctustcr's Latin Translatian of tlu Algebra of al-Kluwoizmi,
Macmillan, l9l5' English version also.
Kasir, D. S.: "The Algebra of Omar Khayyam," Columbia University Teachers
College thesis, 1931.
O'Leary, De Lacy: How Grcck Scicuc Passcd to thc Arabs, Roudedge and Kcgan
Paul, 1949.
Pannekoel, A.: A History of Astronong, John Wiley and Sons, 1961, Chap. 15'
Scott,J, F.: A Hktory of Matlumatics, Taylor and Francis, 1958, Chap. 5.
Smith, David Eugene: History of Matlumatits, Dover (reprint)' 1958, Vol' 1,
pp. 13&-47, 152-92, 283-90'
Struik, D. J.: " Omar Khayyam, Mathematician," Tlu Matlumatits Teuha, 51,
1958,28H5.
IO
The Medieval Period in Europe
In most sciences one generation tears down what another has

built and what one has established another undoes. In mathe-
matics alone each generation adds a new story to the old
structure. HERMANN }IANKEL
l. The Beginnings of a European Ciailization

Western and central Europe entered into the development of mathematics
as the Arab civilization began to decline. However, to familiarize ourselves
with the state of affairs in medieval Europe, to learn how the European
civilization got its start, and to understand the directions it took, we must
go back, briefly at least, to its beginnings.
During the ages when the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans
flourished, the area now called Europe (except for Italy and Greebe)
possessed a primitive civilization. The Germanic tribes who lived there
mastered neither writing nor learning. The Roman historian Tacitus ( Ist
cent. ,1,.o.) describes these tribes of about the time of Christ as honest,
hospitable, hard-drinking, hating peace, and proud of the loyalty of their
wives, Cattle-raising, hunting, and the cultivation of grain were the main
occupations. Beginning in the fourth century of the Christian era the Huns
drove the Goths and the Germanic tribes occupying central Europe farther
west. In the fifth century the Goths took over the western Roman Empire
itself.
Though parts of France and England had previously acquired some
Iearning while under the domination of the Roman Empire, by e.o. 500
new civilizing influences began to operate in Europe. Even before the empire
collapsed the Catholic Church was organized and powerful. The Church
gradually converted the Germanic and Gothic barbarians to Christianity
and began to found schools; these were attached to already existing monas-
teries that possessed fragments of Greek and Roman learning and had been
teaching people how to read the church services and the sacred books. A
little later, the need to train men for ecclesiastical posts motivated the
development of higher schools.
200
THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE FOR LEARNING 2OI
In the latter half of the eighth century some secular rulers founded
additionhl schools. In Charlemagne's empire schools were organized by
Alcuin of York (730-804), an Englishman who came to Europe at the
invitation of Charlemagne himself. These schools too were attached to
cathedrals or monasteries and emphasized Christian theology and music.
Ultimately the universities of Europe grew out of the church schools, with
teachers supplied by church orders such as the Franciscans and Dominicans.
Bologna, the first university, was founded in l0BB. The universities of Paris,
Salerno, Oxford, and Cambridge were established about the year 1200. Of
course at the outset these were hardly universities in the modern sense. Also,
though formally independent, they were essentially devoted to the interests
of the Church.
2. The Materiak Aoailable for Learning

As the Church extended its influence it imposed the culture it favored. Latin
was the official language of the Church and so Latin became the international
language ofEurope and the language ofmathematics and science. It was also
the language ofinstruction in European schools until well into the eighteenth
century.. It became inevitable that Europeans would seek their knowledge
largely from Latin-that is, Roman-books. Since Roman mathematics was
insignificant, all the Europeans learned was a very primitive number system
and a few facts of arithmetic. They also acquired a bit of Greek mathematics
through a few translators.
The principal translator, whose works were widely used until the twelfth
century, was Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (c.480-524), a descendant
of one of the oldest Roman families. Using Greek sources, he compiled in
Latin selections from elementary treatises on arithmetic, geometry, and
astronomy. Of Euclid's Elements he may have translated as many as five
books or as few as two, and these constituted part of his Gcometry. In this
subject he gave definitions and theorems but no proofs. He also included in
this work some material on the geometry of mensuration. Some results are
incorrect and others only approximations. Peculiarly, tlrre Geomctry also
contained material on the abacus and on fractions, the latter preliminary to
material on astronomy (which we do not have). Boethius also wrote Institutis
arithmetica, a translation of Nichomachts' Introdurtio arithmetica, though he
omitted some of Nichomachus' results. This book was the source of all
arithmetic taught in the schools for almost a thousand years. Finally,
Boethius translated some works of Aristotle and wrote an astronomy based
on Ptolemy and a book on music based on Euclid's, Ptolemy's, and Nicho-
machus' works. It is very likely that Boethius did not understand all he
translated. It was he who introduced the word " quadrivium " for arithmetic,
geometry, music, and astronomy, His best-known work, still read today, is
2O2 TIIE MEDIEVAL PERIOD IN EUROPE
the Cotsolations oJ Phihsoplry, which he wrote while imprisoned for alleged

tcason (for which he was ultimately beheaded).
Other trarulaton were the Roman Aurelius Cassiodorus (c.475-57O),
who rendered a few parts of the Greek worLs on mathematics and astronomy
in his own poor version I Isidore of Seville (c, 560-636), who wrote the
Etgrnologirs, a work in twenty books on material ranging from mathematics
to medicine; and the Englishman, the Venerable Bede (674-735). These men
were the main links between Greek mathematics and the early medieval
world.
In all of the problems appearing in books written by early medieval
mattrematicians, only the four operations with integers were involved. Since
in practice calculation was done on various forms of the abacus, the rules of
opcration were specially adapted to it. Fractions were rarely employed, and
whcre they were, the Roman fractions with names rather than special
symbolism were used I for example, urcia for lll2, quiluunx for 5112, dodrans
for 9/12. Irrational numbers did not aPPear at all. Good calculators were
known in the Middle Ages as practitioners of the "Black Art," magic.
In the tenth century the study of mathematics was improved somewhat
by Gcrbert (d. 1003), a native of Auvergrre, later Pope Sylvester IL His
writings, howevcr, were confined to elementary arithmetic and elementary
gcometry.
3. Tlu Roh of Mathenati,cs Early Medieaal Europe

i.n
Though the mathematical material available for instruction was scanty,
mathematics was relatively important in the curriculum of even the early
medieval schools. The curriculum was divided into the quadrivium and the
trivium. The quadrivium included arithmetic, considered as the science of
pure numbcrs; music, regarded as an application of numbers; geometry, or
the study of magnitudes such as length, area, and volumes at rest; and
astronomy, the study of magnitudes in motion. The trivium covered rhetoric,
dialcctic, and grammar.
Learning even the little mathematics we have described served several
purposes. After the time of Gerbert it was applied to finding heights and
distances, the astrolabe and mirror being the field instruments. The clergy
was o<pected to defend the theology and rebut arguments by reasoning, and
mathematics was regarded as good training for theological reasoning, just as
Plato had regarded it as good training for philosophy. The Church advocated
teaching mathematics for its application in keeping the calendar and pre-
dicting holidays. Each monastery had at least one man who could do the
necessary calculations, and various improvements in arithmetic and in the
method of keeping the calendar were devised in the course of this work.
Another motivation for the study of some mathematics was astrology.
rlIE STAGNATION IN MATHEMATTCS 2O3
This pseudoscience, which had had some vogue in Babylonia, in Hellenistic

Greeie, and among the Arabs, was almost universally accepted in medieval
Europe. The basic doctrine of astrology was, of course' that the heavenly
bodies influenced and controlled human bodies and fortunes. To understand
the influences of the heavenly bodies and to predict what special heavenly
events, such as conjunctions and eclipses, portended, some astronomical
knowledge was needed; and thus some mathematics was indispensable.
Astrology was especially important in the late medieval centuries' Every
court had astrologers and the universities had professors of astrology and
courses in the subject. Astrologers advised princes and kings on political
decisions, military camPaigns' and personal matters. The curious thing is
that even rulers who had become learned in and attached to Greek thought
relied upon astrologers. In the late medieval period and in the Renaissance
astrology not only became a major activity but was regarded as a branch of
mathematics.
Through astrology mathematics was linked to medicine (Chap. 7, sec' B) '
Although the Church dismissed the physical body as relatively unimPortant'
the physicians could not subscribe to this belief. Since the heavenly bodies
presumably influenced health, physicians sought the relations between
heaverly events and particular constellations, on the one hand, and the
health of individuals, on the other. Records were kept of the constellations
that appeared at the births, marriages, sicknesses, and deaths of thousands
of peopie and used to predict tlte success of medical treatment' Such a wide
tnowledge of mathematics was required for this purpose that physicians had
to become learned in the field. In fact they were astrologers and mathe-
maticians far more than students of the human body.
The application of mathematics to medicine through astrology became
more widespread in the latter Part of the medieval period' Bologna had a
school of medicine and mathematics in the twelfth century' When the
astronomer Tycho Brahe attended the University of Rostock in 1566, there
were no astronomers there but there were astrologers, alchemists, mathe-
maticians, and physicians. In many universities, professors of astrology were
more common than professors of medicine and astronomy proper' Galileo
did lecture to medical students on astronomy' but for the sake of astrology'
4. The Stagnation in Mathematics

The early medieval period extends from about 400 to about ll00: seven
hundred years during which the European civilization might have developed
some mathematics. It could have derived immense help from the Greek
works had it pursued the few available leads on the vast knowledge embodied
in them. Yet during this period mathematics made no Progress' nor were
2O4 TlrE MEDTEVAL PERIOD IN EUROPE
there any serious attempts to build mathematics. The reasons are of interest
to those who seek to understand under what circumstances mathematics can
flourish.
The primary reason for the low level of mathematics was lack of interest
in the physical world. Christianity, which dominated Europe, prescribed its
own goals, values, and way of life. The important concerns were spiritual,
so much so that inquiries into nature stimulated by curiosity or practical
ends were regarded as frivolous or unworthy. Christianity and even the later
Greek philosophers, the Stoics, Epicureans, and neo-Platonists, emphasized
lifting mind above flesh and matter and preparing the soul for an after-
Iife in heaven. The ultimate reality was the everlasting life of the soul; and
the soul's health was strengthened by learning moral and spiritual truths.
The doctrines of sin, fear of hell, salvation, and aspiration to heaven were
dominant. Since the study of nature did not help achieve such goals or
prepare for the afterlife, it was opposed as worthless and even heretical.
Where, then, did the Europeans secure any knowledge about the nature
and design of the universe and of man? The answer is that all knowledge was
derived from the study of the Scriptures. The creeds and dogmas of the
Church Fathers, which were amplifications and interpretations of the
Scriptures, were taken as the supreme authority. St. Augustine (35+430), a
very learned man and most influential in spreading neo-Platonism, said,
" Whatever knowledge man has acquired outside of Holy Writ, if it be
harmful it is there condemned; if it be wholesome it is there contained."
This quotation, though not representative of Augustine, is representative of
the early medieval attitude toward nature.
This brief sketch of the early medieval civilization, rather one-sided as
it is, because we have been concerned largely with its relation to mathe-
matics, may nevertheless give some idea of what was indigenous to Europe
and what Europe, building on a meager legacy from Rome, produced under
the leadership ofthe Church. Until 1100 the medieval period did not produce
any great culture in intellectual spheres. The characteristics ofits intellectual
state were an indistinctness of ideas, dogmatism, mysticism, and a reliance
upon authorities, who were constantly consulted, analyzed, and com-
mented on. The mystical leanings caused people to elevate vague ideas into
realities and even accept them as religious truths. What little theoretical
science existed was static. Theology embraced all knowledge and the Fathers
of the Church authored systems of universal knowledge. But they did not
conceive or search for principles other than those contained in Christian
doctrines.
The Roman civilization was unproductive in mathematics because it
was too much concerned with practical and immediately applicable results.
The civilization of medieval Europe was unproductive in mathematics for
exactly the opposite reason. It was not at all concerned with the physical
WORKS 2O5
THE FIRST REVIVAL OF TI{E GREEK
world. Mundane matters and problems were unimportant' Christianity Put

its emphasis on life after death and on preparation for that life'
Apparently mathematics cannot flourish in either an earthbound or a
h.uu..rborrrd civilization. We shall see that it has been most successful
in a
free intellectual atmosphere which couples an interest in the problems
presented by the physLal world with a willingness to think about ideas
Lrgg"rt"d by these'problems in an abstract form that makes no promise of
irn"riediate or practical return. Nature is the matrix from which ideas are
born. The ideas must then be studied for themselves' Then, paradoxically'
is
a new insight into nature, a richer, broader, more powerful understanding'
achieved, which in turn generates deeper mathematical activities'
5. Ths First Reai.oal of the Greek Works

By 1100 the civilization of Europe was somewhat stabilized' Though the
.o'"i",y *u, Iargely feudal, theie were already numerous independent
merchants, the beginnings of industry, arts and crafts carried on by
free
and cattle-
f.opf", f"tg"-.cale-farmiirg, manufacturing, mining,
banking,
.uirirg. foiign trade, notably with the Arabs and the Near East, had been
the arts
estabiished. Finally, the wealth necessary to suPPort scholarship and
was acquired by princes, church officials, and merchants'
Thoughtherewasastablesocietythereislittleindicationthatthe
Errropearr{ if left to pursue their own way of life, would ever have abandoned
the outlooi and emphasis already sketched and turned to a serious study
of
mathematics. Western Europe was the successor of Christianized Rome and
neither Rome nor Christianity was inclined toward mathematics' But about
1100, new influences began to afiect the intellectual atmosphere'
Throl-Sh
tradeandtraveltheEuropeanshadcomeintocontactwiththeArabsofthe
Mediterranean area and the Near East and with the Byzantines of the
Eastern Roman Empire. The Crusades (c. I t0G+' 1300), military c11rrP-S*
to conquer territot, brought Europeans into Arab lands' The Crusaders
*"r" --.., of action .ath.. ih.., learning; it may be that the importance of
the contact through the Crusades has been overestimated' At any rate the
Europeans begari to learn about the Greek works from the Arabs
and
Byzantine Greels.
Awareness of the Greek learning created great excitement; EuroPeans
and
energetically sought out copies ofthe Greek works, their Arabic versions'
te*tJ*.itt", by Labs. Princes arrd church leaders suPPorted scholarsin the
hunt for these ireasures. The scholars went to Arab centers in Africa, Spain,
southern France, Sicily, and the Near East to study the works and
bring
(c' 109G+' 1150) went to
back what they could purchase. Adelard of Bath
Syria, which was under Arab control, to Cordova, disguised as a Moham-
medan student, and to southern Italy' Leonardo of Pisa learned arithmetic
206 THE MBDTEVAL pERroD rN EURopE
in North Africa. The republics of northern Italy and the papacy sent missions
and ambassadors to the Byzantine Empire and to Sicily, which was the
original home of famous Greek centers and which up to B7B had been under
Byzantine rule. In l0B5 Toledo was captured by the Christians and thus a
major center for the Arabic works was opened up to European scholars.
Sicily was taken from the Arabs by the Christians in l09I and the works
there became freely accessible. A search in Rome, which possessed Greek
works from the days of the Empire, unearthed more manuscripts.
As they secured these works the Europeans undertook more and more
to translate them into Latin. The twelfth-century translations from Greek
were, on the whole, not good because Greek was not well known. They were
dt aerbo ad aerbuml but they were better than the translations of Greek
works that had passed through Arabic, a language quite dissimilar to Greek.
Hence until well into the seventeenth century there was a steady output
of new, improved translations.
Thus Europe got to know the works of Euclid and Ptolemy, al-Khow-
6rizmi's Aithmeth and. Algebra, the Sphauica of Theodosius, many works of
Aristotle and Heron, and a couple of Archimedes' works, particularly his
Mcasarernent o;f aCircle. (The rest of his work was translated into Latin in 1544
by Hervagius of Basle.) Neither Apollonius nor Diophantus was translated
during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Works on philosophy, medicine,
science, theology, and astrology were also translated. Since the Arabs did
have almost all the Greek works, the Europeans acquired a tremendous
Iiterature. They admired these works so much and were so fascinated by the
novel ideas that they became disciples of Greek thought. They valued these
works far more than their own creations.
6. The Reaiaal of Rationalism and Interest in Nature

A rational approach to natural phenomena and explanation in terms of
natural causes, as opposed to moral or purposive explanations, began to show
signs of life almost immediately aflter the first translations of the Greek and
Arabic works reached Europe. A group at Chartres in France, Gilbert de la
Por6e (c. 1076-1 154), Thierry of Chartres (d. c. I 155), and Bernard Sylvester
(c. ll50), had begun to seek rational explanations even of biblical passages
and spoke, at least, of the need to use mathematics in the study of nature.
Their doctrines followed Plato's Timaeus but were more rational than that
dialogue. Flowever, their pronouncements on physical phenomena, though
noteworthy in medieval thought, were neither significant nor influential
enough to warrant attention here.
With the influx of Greek works, the trend to rational explanations, study
ofthe physical world, and interest in the enjoyment of the real world through
food, a physical life, and the pleasures of nature became marked. Some men
REVTVAL OF RATTONALISM AND INTEREST IN NATT'RE 2O7
even began to pit their own reason against the authority of the Church'
Thus AJelard oi B.th said he would not listen to those who are "led in a
halter;.. . Wherefiore if you want to hear anything from me, give and take
reason."
Peculiarly enough, the introduction of some ofthe Greek works retarded
the awakening ofEurope for a couple ofcenturies' By 1200 or so the extensive
writings of Aistotle beca-e reasonably well known' The European intellec-
tuals iere pleased and impressed by his vast store of facts, his acute distinc-
tions, his cogent arguments, and his logical arrangement of knowledge'
The
was that he accepted those that appealed to the
defect in Aristotle's doctrines
almost without regard for their correspondence with experience' He
mind
offered concepts, theoriJs, and explanations, such as the doctrine of
basic
substances, the distinction between earthly and heavenly bodies (Chap' 7'
sec.3), and the emphasis on final cause, which had little basis in reality' or
new
were not fruitful. Since all of these doctrines were accePted uncritically,
ideas were either not entertained or failed to gain a hearing, and progress
a minor
was delayed. It was perhaps also a hindrance that Aristotle assigned
role to mathematics, certainly a role subordinate to physical explanation'
which, for Aristotle, was qualitative.
Thescientificworkoftheperiodfromaboutlt00to1450wasdoneby
the Scholastics, who espoused doctrines based on the authority of the
Christian Fathers and of Aristotle; the work suffered accordingly' Some of
the Scholastics revolted against the prevailing dogmatism and against the
insistence on the absolute correctness of Aristotle's science. one who felt
the
need for obtaining general principles from experimentation and for deduc-
tions in which mathematics would play a part and which could then be
testedagainstfactswasthenaturalphilosopherRobertGrosseteste(c.l168-
1253), Bishop of Lincoln.
th. -ort "loqrent Protester against authority, and one who had genuine
ideas to offer, was Roge. Bu"ot (1214-94), the Doctor Mirabilis'
He declared'
"If I had the power over the works of Aristotle, I would have them all
burned; for it is only a loss of time to study in them and a cause of error' and
a multiplicatio., of igrro.arrce beyond expression'" Bacon's enormous knowl-
idge covered the sciences of his time and many languages, including Arabic'
Lo"ng before they became widely known he was informed on the
latest
inveitions and scientific advances: gunpowder, the action oflenses' mechan-
ical clocks, the construction of the calendar, and the formation of the
rainbow.Heevendiscussedideasonsubmarines,airplanes,andautomobiles'
His writings on mathematics, mechanics, oPtics, vision, astronomy' geog-
raphy, chrJnology, chemistry, perspective, music, medicine, grammar' logic'
metaphysics, ethics, and theology were sound'
Wttut especially striking about Bacon is that he understood how
it
reliable knowled-ge is obtained. He inquired into the causes that produce
or
2oB THE MEDIEVAL PERIoD IN EURoPE
prevent the advance of science and speculated on the reform of the methods
of inquiry. Though he did recommend study of the Scriptures, he emphasized
mathematics and experimentation and foresaw great prospects that could be
realized through science.
Mathematical ideas, he affirms, are innate in us and identical with things
as they are in nature, for nature is written in the language ofgeometry. Hence
mathematics offers truth. It is prior to the other sciences because it takes
cognizance of quantity, which is apprehended by the intuition. He " proves "
in one chapter of his Oprs Majus that all science requires mathematics, and
his arguments show a just appreciation of the office of mathematics in
science. Though he stresses mathematics, he also has a full appreciation of the
role and importance of experimentation as a means of discovery and as a
test of results obtained theoretically or in any other way. "Argument con-
cludes a question; but it does not make us feel certain, or acquiesce in the
contemplation oftruth, except the truth also be found to be so by experience."
Bacon's OPus Majus has much on the usefulness of mathematics for
geography, chronology, music, the explanation of the rainbow, calen-
dar-reckoning, and the certification of faith. He also treats the role of
mathematics in state administration, meteorology, hydrography, astrology,
perspective, optics, and vision.
However, even Bacon was a product of his times. He believed in magic
and astrology and maintained that theology is the goal of all learning. He
was also a victim of his times : he ended up in prison, as did many other
intellectual leaders who had begun to assert the priority and independence
of human reason and the importance of observation and experimentation.
His influence on his age was not great.
William of Ockham (r. 1300-49) continued the weighty attacks on
Aristotle, criticizing Aristotle's views on causation. Final cause, he said, is
pure metaphor. All causes are immediate, and the total cause is the aggregate
of all the antecedents that suffice to bring about an event. This knowledge of
connections has a universal validity because of the uniformity ofnature. The
primary function of science is to establish sequences of observations. As for
substance, Ockham said, we know only properties, not a fundamental
substantial form.
He also attacked contemporary physics and metaphysics, saying that
knowledge gained from experience is real, whereas rational constructs are
not; they are merely invented to explain the observed facts. His famous
principle is " Ockham's razor " (already stated by Grosseteste and Duns
Scotus [266-1308]) : It is futile to work with more entities when fewer
suffice. He divorced theology from natural philosophy (science) on the
ground that theology derives knowledge from revelations whereas natural
philosophy should derive it from experience.
These dissenters did not suggest new scientific ideas. But they did press
PROPER 2O9
PROORESS IN MATHEMATICS
for freedom of speculation, thought, and inquiry and urged experience as the
source of scientific knowledge.
7. Progress in Mathematics ProPer

Despite the rigid bounds to thought in the period from 1100 to about 1450,
,o-" -uth"-ltical activity did take place, the main centers being the
universities of Oxford, Paris, Vienna (founded in 1365), and Erfurt
(founded
in 1392). The initial work was a direct resPonse to the Greek and Arabic
literature.
The first European worthy of mention is Leonardo of Pisa (c' I 170-
1250), also called Fibonacci. He was educated in Africa, traveled extensively
in Err.op. and Asia Minor, and was famous for his sovereign possession of
the entire mathematical knowledge of his own and preceding generations'
He resided at Pisa and was well known to Frederick II of Sicily and the
philosophers of the court, to whom most ofhis extant works are dedicated'
In1202Leonardowrotetheepoch-makingandlong-usedLiberAbaci,a
free rendition of Arabic and Greek materials into Latin. Arabic notation
for
numbers and Hindu methods of calculation were already known to some
extent in Europe, but only in the monasteries' People in general used Roman
numerals and avoided zero because they did not understand it' Leonardo's
book exerted great influence and changed the picture; it taught the Hindu
methodsofca-lculationwithintegersandfractions,squareroots,andcube
roots. These methods were subsequently improved by the Florentine
merchants.
In both the Liber Abaci and a later work, the Liber Quadratorum (|225),
Leonardo treated algebra' He followed the Arabs in using words rather than
the
symbols and in basirig the algebra on arithmetical.methods. He Presented
,ol,rtio., of determinate and indeterminate equations of the first and second
degree and some cubic equations. Like Khayyam, he believed that Seneral
cuLic equations could not be solved algebraically'
On the geometric side, Leonardo in his Pradica Gcometriae (1220)
reproduced mich of Euclid's Elemmts and Greek trigonometry' His teaching
geometric
of'surveying by trigonometric methods rather than by the Roman
methods represented a slight advance'
The most significant new feature of Leonardo's work is the observation
thatEuclid'sclassificationofirrationalsinBookXoftheElementsdidnot
include all irrationals. Leonardo showed that the roots of xs + 2* *
the
10r : 20 are not constructible with straightedge and compass' This was
first indication that the number system contained more than the Greek
criterionofexistencebyconstructionallowed.Leonardoalsointroducedthe
is the
notion ofwhat are still called Fibonacci sequences, wherein each term
sum of the Preceding two.
2ro TIIE MEDIEVAL PERIOD IN EUROPE
Figure 10.1
Beyond the observation on irrationals made by Leonardo, there were

some germinal ideas in the work of Nicole Oresme (c. 1323-82), Bishop of
Lisieux and a teacher in the Parisian College of Navarre. In his unpublished
Algorismus Proportionum (c. 1360), he introduced both a notation and some
computation with fractional exponents. His thinking was that since (in our
notation) 43 :64 and (43)1/e : 8, then 43t2 : B. The notion of fractional
exp,onents reappeared in the work of several sixteenth-century writers, but
wai not widely used until the seventeenth century.
Another contribution of Oresme's involves the study of change. We may
recall that Aristotle distinguished sharply between quality and quantity.
Intensity of heat was a quality to Aristotle. To change intensity some sub-
stance, a species of heat, had to be lost and another added. Oresme affirmed
that there were not difierent kinds of heat but only more or less of the same
kind. Several fourteenth-century Scholastics at Oxford and Paris, including
Oresme, began to think about change and rate of change quantitatively.
These men studied uniform motion (motion with constant velocity), difform
motion (motion with varying velocity), and uniformly difform motion
(motion with constant acceleration).
This line of thought culminated in that period with Oresme's doctrine
of the latitude of forms. On this subject he wrote De Unformitate et Diformitate
Intcnsionum (c. 1350) and Tradatus de Latitudinibus Formarum (n.d.). To study
change and rate of change, Oresme followed the Greek tradition in asserting
that measurable quantities other than numbers can be represented by points,
lines, and surflaces. Thus, to represent velocity changing with time, he
represents time along a horizontal line, which he called the longitude, and
the velocities at various times by vertical lines, which he called the latitudes.
To represent a velocity decreasing uniformly from the val:ue OA (Fig. l0.l)
at O to zeto at B, he gives a triangular figure. He also points out that the
rectangle OBDC, determined by .8, the midpoint of AB, has the same area
as the triangle OAB and represents a uniform motion over the same time
interval. Oresme associated physical change with the entire geometrical
figure. The whole area represented the variation in question; numerical
values were not involved.
It is often said that Oresme contributed to the formation of the function
concept, to the functional representation of physical laws, and to the classifi-
PROGRESS IN PIIYSICAL SCIENCE 2II
cation of functions, He is also credited with the creation of coordinate

geometry and the graphical representation offunctions' Actually the latitude
if fo.,,,r'i, a dim idea, at best a kind of graph' Though Oresme's rePresenta-
tion of intensity under the name latitudines formarum was a major technique
in
the Scholastic attemPt to study physical change, was taught in the univer-
sities, and was applied in efforts to revise Aristotle's theory of motion, its
influence on subseiuent thought was minor. Galileo did use this figure, but
with far more clariiy and pointedness. Since Descartes carefully avoided any
reference to his predecessors, we do not know if he was influenced by
Oresme's ideas.
8. Progrus in Physical Scfunce
Because the progress of mathematics depended vitally on the renewal of an

interest i, ,"i"nJ", we shall note briefly the efforts made in this area by the
medieval men.
In mechanics, they took over the highly acceptable Greek works on the
lever and centers ofgraviry and Archimedes' work on hydrostatics' They did
little more than comprehend the theory of the lever, though slight additions
were made by Jordanus Nemorarius (d. 1237).It was the theory of motion
that received most attention.
Because Aristotle's science had acquired ascendancy, it was his theory
that became the starting point for investigations of motion' As we pointed
out in chapter 7, there were several apparent difficulties in Aristotle's theory.
These the earlier medieval scientists sought to resolve within the basic
Aristotelian framework. Thus, to account for the acceleration of falling bodies,
several thirteenth-century men interpreted Aristotle's vague notions about
gravity to mean that the weight ofa body increases as it nears the center of
the ea.th. Then, since the force increases, so does the velocity' Others ques-
tioned the correctness of Aristotle's fundamental law that velocity is force
divided by resistance.
The school at Chartres was succeeded in the fourteenth century by a
school at Paris whose leaders were Oresme and Jean Buridan (c' t 300-
c. 1360). Here at the university Aristotelian views had been dominant' To
explain the continuing motion of objects launched by a force, Buridan put
forth a new theory, the theory of impetus. Following the sixth-century
Christian scholar Philoponus, Buridan said that the motive power impressed
on an arrow or projectile was impressed on the object itselfand not on the air.
This impetus, rather than the propelling action of the air, would maintain
the object's uniform velocity indefinitely, were it not for the action of
external forces. In the case of falling bodies, impetus was gradually in-
creased by natural gravity acting to add successive increments of impetus
2r2 THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD IN EUROPE
to that \ /hich the object already had. In rising bodies-for example, pro-
jectiles-the impetus given to the object was gradually decreased by the air
resistance and natural gravity. Impetus was what God gave to the celestial
spheres and these needed no heavenly agents to keep them running. Buridan
defined impetus as the quantity of matter multiplied by the velocityl hence,
in modern terms, it is momentum.
This new theory was remarkable for several reasons. By applying it to
heavenly and earthly motions, Buridan linked the two in one theory.
Furthermore, the theory implied that, contrary to Aristotle's law, a force
would alter motion and not just sustain it. Third, the concept of impetus
itself was a great advance; it transferred the motive power from the medium
to the moving object and also made possible the consideration of a void.
Buridan is one of the founders of modern dynamics. His theory gained wide
acceptance in his own century and for two centuries thereafter.
Perhaps projectile motion received this attention because by the thir-
teenth century improved weaponry, such as catapults, crossbows, and long-
bows, could throw projectiles over long and highly arched paths; a century
later cannonballs were in use. Aristotle had said that a body can move only
under one type of force at a time ; if two were acting, one would destroy the
other. Elence a body thrown up and out would move along a straight line
until the "violent" motion was spent and then the body would drop straight
to earth under a natural motion. Of the various revisions of this theory, the
idea ofJordanus Nemorarius proved most helpful; he showed that the force
under which a body thrown straight out moved at any instant could be
resolved into two components, natural gravity acting downward and a
"violent" horizontal force ofprojection. This idea was taken up by da Vinci,
Stevin, Galileo, and Descartes.
The Parisian school of Buridan and Oresme went on to consider not
only uniform but difform and uniformly difform motion and proved to its
own satisfaction that the effective velocity in uniformly difform motion was
the average of the initial and final velocities. Perhaps most significant about
the efforts in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century mechanics was the attempt
to introduce quantitative considerations and to replace qualitative by
quantitative arguments.
The major interest of the medieval scientists lay in the field of optics.
One reason for this is that the Greeks had laid a firmer foundation in what
we now call geometrical optics than in other physical fields; and by the late
medieval period their numerous works in optics were known in Europe. In
addition, the Arabs had made some advances over the Greeks. By 1200 some
of the basic laws of light were well known, including the straight-line motion
of light in a tiniform medium; the law of reflection; and Ptolemy's incorrect
law of refraction (he believed the angle of refraction was proportional to the
angle of incidence). Also the knowledge of spherical and parabolic mirrors,
STMMARY 2I3
spherical aberration, the pinhole camera, the uses of lenses, the functioning
of th" atmospheric refraction, and the possibility of magnification had
"y.,
passed on to Europe from the Greeks and the Arabs'
The scientists Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Vitello (l3th cent'), John
Peckham (d. 1292), and Theodoric of Freiberg (d. c. l3l l) made advances
in light. Having learned of the relraction of light by lenses, they determined
the focal lengths of some lenses, studied combinations of lenses, suggested
magnification by combinations of lenses, and made improvements in the
theory of the rainbow. Glass mirrors were perfected during the thirteenth
century; spectacles date from 1299. Vitello observed the dispersion of light
under iefraction; that is, he produced colors from white light passed through
a hexagonal crystal. He also directed light through a bowl of water to study
the rainbow, since he had previously noted that when sunlight passes
through a bowl of water the colors of the rainbow appear in the emerging
light. bptics continued to be a major sciencel we shall find Kepler, Galileo,
Descartes, Fermat, Huygens, and Newton active in it.
9. SummarE
In science, as in other fields, the Middle Ages devoted itself to time-tested
and authoritative works. The schools produced diligent excerpting from older
manuscripts, summarizing, and commentaries' The spirit of the times forced
minds to iollow trusted, prescribed, and rigid ways. The search for a universal
philosophy covering all phenomena ofman, nature, and God is characteristic
of th" lut. medieval period. But the contributions suffered from an indistinct-
nessof ideas, mysticism, dogmatism, and a commentatorial spirit directed
toward the analysis of authorities.
Nevertheless, as the world gradually changed, a$'areness of discrepancy
and conflict between beliefs and overt facts grew stronger, and the need for a
revision of learning and beliefs grew clearer, Before Galileo demonstrated
the value of experiince, before Descartes taught people to look within them-
selves, and before Pascal formulated the idea of progress, it was the uncon-
ventional thinkers, largely the dissident Scholastics, who attemPted to
advance along new lines, to challenge established outlools, and to place
stronger reliance upon observation of nature than had the Greeks'
Experimentation, motivated in part by the search for magical Poweni,
and the use ofinduction to obtain general principles or scientific laws began
to be important sources of knowledge, despite the fact that the major
scientific method of the late Middle Ages was rational explanation, presented
in a formal or geometrical demonstration based on a priori principles'
The value of mathematics in the investigation of nature also received
some recognition. Though on the whole the medieval scientists followed
2t4 TIIE MEDIEVAL PERIOD IN EUROPE
Aristotle in looking for material or physical explanations, these were hard to

obtain and not too helpful; they found more and more that it was easier to
correlate observations and experimental results mathematically and then
check the mathematical law. Thus in astronomy it was not Aristotle's
physical modification of Eudoxus' theory that was used by the scientists
concerned with astronomical theory proper, navigation, and the calendar,
but Ptolemy's, As a consequence, mathematics began to play a larger role
than Aristotle had assigned to it.
Despite the new trends and activities, it is doubtful that medieval
Europe, if permitted to pursue an unchanging course, would have ever
develoaed any real science and mathematics. Free inquiry was not permitted.
The few universities already in existence by 1400 were controlled by the
Church and the professors were not free to teach what they thought correct.
If no scientific doctrines were condemned in the medieval period, it was only
because no new major ones were promulgated. Any real dissent from
Christian thought that appeared in any sphere was suppressed with dispatch,
cruelty, and viciousness unequaled in history, largely through the Inquisi-
tions initiated by Pope Innocent III in the thirteenth century.
Other factors, relatively minor, delayed changes in Europe. The revived
Greek knowledge reached only the few scholars who had the leisure and
opportunity to study it. Manuscripts were expensive; many who wanted to
acquire them could not. Also, Europe in the period from 1100 to 1500 was
broken up into a number of independent dukedoms, principalities, more or
less democratic or oligarchic city-states, and the Papal States. The wars
among all these political units were continuous and absorbed the energies
of the people. The Crusades, which began about 1100, wasted a fantastic
number oflives. The Black Death in the second halfofthe fourteenth century
took about a third of the population of Europe and set back the entire
civilization. Fortunately, forces of revolutionary strength did begin to exert
their effects on the European intellectual, political, and social scene.
Bibliograplry
Short Account of the History of Matlumatits, Dover (reprint), 1960,
Ball, W. W. R. : ,ll
Chaps. 8, 10, I l.
Boyer, Carl B.: A History of Matlumatics, lohn Wiley and Sorx, 1968, Chap. 14.
Cajori, Florian: A History of Mathematics, Macmillan, 1919, pp. I 13-29.
Clagett, Marshall : Tlu Scizme of Mechani.cs in the Middle lgcs, University of Wis-
consin Press, 1959.
Nirole Oresme and the Geomctry of Qualities and Motions, University of Wis-
consin Press, 1968.
-'t
Crombie, A. C.: Augustine to Galileo, Falcon Press, 1952, Chaps. l-5.
Robert Grosseleste and ilu Oigitu of Expuimcntal Scizrce, Oxford University
Press, 1953.
-i
BIBLIOGRAPITT 2r5
EastoD, stewart z Rogcr Buon awl His searchfor a uni:uersal science, columbia univer-
sity Press, 1952'
Hofmann, J. D.t Ttu History oJ Mattunatics, Philosophical Library, 1957' Chaps'
s4.
Smith, David Eugene: Hi;tory oJ Matlumalits, Dover (reprint), 1958, Vol' I'
pp. 177-265.
II
The Renaissance
It appears to me that if one wants to make progress in mathe-

matics, one should study the masters and not the pupils.
N. H. ABEL
l. Reaolutionarg Infiuences in Europe

In the period from about 1400 to about 1600, which we shall adopt as the
period of the Renaissance (though this term is used to describe different
chronological periods by various writers), Europe was profoundly shaken by
a number of events that ultimately altered drastically the intellectual outlook
and stirred up mathematical activity ofunprecedented scale and depth.
The revolutionary influences were widespread. Political changes resulted
from almost incessant wars involving every city and state of Europe. Italy,
the mother of the Renaissance, is a prime example. Though the history of the
Italian states in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is marred by constant
intrigues, mass murders, and destruction caused by wars, the very fluid
nature of political conditions and the establishment of some democratic
governments were favorable to the rise of the individual. Wars against the
papacy, a leading political and military power in that era, not only freed
people from the domination of the Church but encouraged intellectual
opposition as well.
Italy acquired great wealth during the latter part of the Middle Ages.
This was largely due to its geographical position. Its seaports were most
favorably located to import goods from Alrica and Asia for shipment to the
rest of Europe. Great banking houses made Italy the financial center. This
wealth was essential to the support of learning. And it was in Italy, the most
bedeviled of all countries and seething with turmoil, that the thoughts that
were to mold Western civilization were first conceived and expressed.
During the fifteenth century the Greek works reached Europe in enor-
mously greater numbers. In the early part ol the century the connections
between Rome and the Byzantine Empire, which possessed the largest
collection of Greek documents but had been isolated, became stronger. The
Byzantines, at war with the Turks, sought the help of the Italian states.
z16
REVOLUTTONARY INFLUENCES IN EUROPE 217
Under the improved relationships teachers of Greek were brought to Italy

and Italians went to the Byzantine Empire to learn Greek' When the Turks
conquered Constantinople in 1453, the Greek scholars fled to Italy, bringing
were many more Greek works
-ori -urr.,r".ipts with them. Thus not only
made availabl. to Er.op., but many of the newly acquired manuscripts
were far better than the ones previously acquired in the twelfth and thir-
teenth centuries. The subsequent translations, made into Latin directly from
the Greek, were more reliable than those made from Arabic'
Johann Gutenberg's invention, about 1450, of
printing with movable
typeipeeded up the spiead ofknowledge. Linen and cotton Paper, which the
i,r.op"u.r, learned about from the Chinese through the Arabians, replaced
pu."h-.rr, and papyrus from the twelfth century on' Commencing in 1474'
mathematical, astronomical, and astrological works appeared in printed
form. For example, the first Printed edition of Euclid's Elcments in a Latin
translation byJohannes Campanus (I3th cent.) appeared in Venice in 1482'
During the next century th; first four books of Apollonius' Conit Sections,
Papprr*r' works, and Diophantus' Arithmetica, as well as other treatises'

appeared in printed editions.
The introduction of the compass and gunpowder had significant efiects'
The compass made possible navigation out of sight of land' Gunpowder,
introduced in the thirteenth century, changed the method ofwarfare and the
design of fortifications and made the study of the motion of projectiles
important.
A new economic era was initiated by a tremendous growth in manu-
facturing, mining, large-scale agriculture and a great variety of trades' Each
of these enterprises encountered technical problems that were tackled more
vigorously than in any previous civilization. In contrast to the slave societies
oingypa, Greece, and Rome, and the serfdom of medieval feudalism' the
-society
new possessed an expanding class of free artisans and laborers'
Independent mechanics and wage-paying employers had an incentive to
,"u..i fo. labor-saving devices. The competition ofa capitalist economy also
stimulated direct studies of physical phenomena and causal connections to
improve materials and methods of production' Since the Church had offered
explanations of many of these phenomena, conflicts arose' We may be sure
that whenever the physical explanation proved more useful than the theo-
logical, the latter was ignored.
The merchant class contributed to a new order in Europe by promoting
the geographical explorations of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries'
r.o--pt._-a by the reed for better trade routes and for sources of commodities,
the explorations brought to Europe much knowledge ofstrange lands, plants'
ani-als, climates, ways of life, beliefs, and customs' This knowledge chal-
lenged medieval dogmas and stimulated imaginations'
Doubts as to the soundness of Church science and cosmology raised by
2r8
direct observation or by information filtering into Europe from explorers
and traders, objections to the Church's suppression of experimentation and
thought on the problems created by the new social order, the moral degenera-
tion of some Church leaders, corrupt Church practices such as the sale of
salvation, and, finally, serious doctrinal differences, all culminated in the
Protestant Reformation. The reformers were supported by the merchants
and princes, who were anxious to break the power of the Church.
The Reformation as such did not liberalize thought or free men's
minds. The Protestant leaders aimed only to set up their own brand of
dogmatism. However, in raising questions concerning the nature of the
sacraments, the authority of Church government, and the meaning of pas-
sages in the Scriptures, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli unintentionally encour-
aged many people to think and do what they would not otherwise have dared.
Thought was stimulated and argumentation provoked. Further, to win
adherents the Protestants professed that individual judgment, rather than
papal authority, was the basis for belief. Thus, variations in belief were
sanctioned. Called upon to choose between Catholic and Protestant claims,
many declared "a plague on both your houses" and turned from the two
faiths to nature, observation, and experimentation as the sources ofknowledge,
2. Tlu New Intellectual Outlook

The Church rested on authority, revered Aristotle, and branded doubt as
criminal. It also deprecated material satisfactions and emphasized salvation
of the soul for an afterlife. These tenets contrasted sharply with values the
Europeans learned from the Greeks, though they were not pronounced in
Aristotle: the study of nature, the enjoyment of the physical world, the
perfecting of mind and body, freedom of inquiry and expression, and
confidence in human reason. Irked by Church authority, restrictions on the
physical life, and reliance on Scripture as the source ofall knowledge and the
authority for all assertions, the intellectuals grasped eagerly at the new values,
Instead of endless disputations and wrangling as to the meaning of biblical
passages to determine truth, men turned to nature itself.
Almost as a corollary to the revival of Greek knowledge and values
came the revival of interest in mathematics. From the worts of Plato
especially, which became known in the fifteenth century, the Europeans
learned that nature is mathematically designed and that this design is
harmonious, aesthetically pleasing, and the inner truth. Nature is rational,
simple and orderly, and it acts in accordance with immutable laws. Platonic
and $thagorean works also emphasized number as the essence of reality, a
doctrine that had alrcady received some attention from the deviating
Scholastics of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The revival of
Platonism clarffied and crystallized the ideas and methods with which these
THE NE!l/ INTELLECTUAL OLTTLOOK 219
men had been struggling. The Pythagorean-Platonic emphasis on quantita-

tive relations as the essence of reality gradually became dominant' Coper-
nicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Huygens, and Newton were in this respect
essentiallt pythagoreans and by their work established the principle that the
goal of scientific activity should be quantitative mathematical laws'
To the intellectuals of the Renaissance, mathematics appealed for still
another reason. The Renaissance was a period in which the medieval
civilization and culture were discredited as new influences, information, and
revolutionary movements swePt Europe. These men sought new and sound
bases for the erection of knowledge, and mathematics offered such a founda-
tion. Mathematics remained the one accepted body of Euths amid crumbling
philosophical systems, disputed theological beliefs, and changing ethical
values. Mathematical knowledge was certain and offered a secure foothold
in a morass I the search for truth was redirected toward it'
Mathematicians and scientists did receive some inspiration from the
theological bias of the Middle Ages, which had inculcated the view that all
the phinomena ofnature are not only interconnected but oPerate in accord-
anci with an overall plan: all the actions of nature follow the plan laid down
by a single first cause. How, then, was the theological view of God's universe
to be reconciled with the search for the mathematical laws of nature? The
answer was a new doctrine, namely, that God desigrred the universe mathe-
matically. In other words, by crediting God with being a supreme mathe-
matician, it became possible to regard the search for the mathematical laws
ofnature as a religious quest.
This doctrine inspired the work of the sixteenth-, seventeenth-, and even
some eighteenth-century mathematicians. The search for the mathematical
laws of nature was an act of devotion; it was the study of the ways and
nature of God and of His plan of the universe. The Renaissance scientist was
a theologian, with nature instead of the Bible for his subject' Copernicus,
Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Descartes, Newton, and Leibniz speak
repeatedly tf the harmony that God imparted to the universe through His
mithematical design. Mathematical knowledge, since it is in itself truth about
the universe, is as sacrosanct as any line of Scripture, indeed superior,
because it is clear, undisputed knowledge. Galileo said, "Nor does God less
admirably discover Himself to us in Nature's actions than in the scriptures'
sacred dictions." To which Leibniz added, " Curn Deus calcuLat, ft mudus"
(As God calculates, so the world is made). These men sought mathematical
relations that would reveal the grandeur and glory of God's handiwork'
Man could not hope to learn the divine plan as clearly as God himself
understood it, but with humility and modesty, man could seek at least to
approach the mind of God.
The scientists persisted in the search for mathematical laws underlying
natural phenomena because they were convinced that God had incorporated
22O THE RENAISSANCE
these laws in His construction of the universe. Each discovery of a law of

nature was hailed more as evidence of God's brilliance than of the brilliance
of the investigator. Kepler in particular wrote paeans to God on the occasion
of each discovery. The beliefs and attitudes of the mathematicians and
scientists exemplify the larger cultural phenomenon that swept Renaissance
Europe. The Greek works impinged on a deeply devout Christian world, and
the intellectual leaders born in one and attracted by the other fused the
doctrines of both.
3. The Spread of Learning

For several reasons the diffusion of the new values took place slowly. The
Greek works were, at first, to be found only at the courts of secular and
ecclesiastical princes and were not accessible to the people at large. Printing
aided enormously in making books generally available, but the effect was
gradual because even printed books were expensive. The problem of spread-
ing knowledge was complicated by two additional factors. First, many of
those who would gladly have put mathematics and science to use in industry,
crafts, navigation, architecture, and other pursuits were uneducated;
schooling was by no means common. The second factor was language, The
learned-scholars, professors, and theologians-were at home with Latin
and, to some extent, with Greek. But artists, artisans, and engineers knew
only the vernacular-French, German, and the several Italian languages-
and were not benefited by the Latin translations of the Greek works.
Beginning in the sixteenth century, many Greek classics were translated
into tJie popular languages. Mathematicians themselves took a hand in this
activity. For example, Tartaglia translated Euclid's Elements from Latin into
Italian in 1543. The translation movement continued well into the seven-
teenth century; but it proceeded slowly because many scholars were hostile
to the common people. The former were contemptuous of the latter; they
preferred Latin because they believed that the weight of tradition attached
to it would give authority to their pronouncements. To counter such scholars
and to reach the public and obtain its support for his ideas, Galileo deliber-
ately wrote in Italian. Descartes wrote in French for the same reason; he
hoped that those who used their natural reason might be better judges of
his teachings than those who slavishly respected the ancient writings.
Another measure to educate the public, adopted in a few cities of ltaly,
was the establishment of libraries. The Medici family financed libraries in
Florence and some of the popes did the same in Rome. Partly to spread
education and partly to provide a meeting place for communication among
scholars, several liberal rulers founded academies. Most notable among these
was the Florentine Academy of Design, founded by Cosimo I de' Medici
(1519-74) in 1563, which became a center for mathematical studies, and the
HUMAMSTIC ACTTVITY IN MATI{EMATICS 22I
Roman Accademia dei Lincei (LynxJike) founded in 1603' Members of

these academies translated Latin works into the popular languages, gave
lectures to the public, and extended and deepened their own knowledge by
communicatio; with each other. These academies were the forerunners of
the more famous ones founded later in England, France, Italy, and Germany
that were so enormously helpful in spreading knowledge'
Regrettably the universities of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries
played ilmost no role in these developments. Theology ruled the universities
urri ;tt study was the PurPose of learning. Knowledge was considered
complete and final. Hence experimentation was unnecessary, and the new
discoveries of outsiders were ignored. The conservative university professors
did their best to cling to medieval learning as formulated by the scholastics
since the thirteenth century. The universities did teach arithmetic,
geometry,
astronomy, and music, but the astronomy was based on Ptolemy and was not
observational. Natural philosophy meant studying Aristotle's Piysics'
4. Humanistic Actiuity in Mathemati'cs

while the scholastics adhered firmly to late medieval doctrines, a new grouP
of humanists devoted themselves to collecting, organizing, and critically
studying Greek and Roman learning. These men made assiduous studies'
and wiiir on the whole questionable sagacity strove to cleanse the to<ts of
errors and to restore lost material. They slavishly accepted, repeated, and
endlessly interpreted what they found in the ancient and medieval manu-
."riptr, err"r, undertaking philological studies to determine precise meanings'
They also wrote many books that redid the ancient works in a scholastic
reinterpretation. Though this activity may have aroused an interest in
learning, it nevertheless fostered the deception that learning consisted in
deepening and confirming the accepted body of knowledge'
'
Typical of the humanists of the sixteenth century was the algebraist
-Ca.dan
Jero-e (Gerolamo Cardano), who was born in Pavia in l50l' His
""..""...
rogue and scholar is one of the most fascinating among the {iantastic
careers of Renaissance men. He gives an account of his life in his Dc Vita
Propriâ (Book of My Life), written in his old age, in which he praises
and
abases himself. He says that his Parents endowed him only with misery and
scorn I he passed a wretched boyhood and was so poor for the first fiorty years
ofhis life tiat he ceased to regard himselfas poor because, as he put it, he had
nothing left to lose. IIe was high-tempered, devoted to erotic pleasures,
vindictlve, quarrelsome, conceited, humorless, incapable of compunction,
ard pr"po.eiy cruel in speech. Though he had no passion for gambling he
playid dice every day for twenty-five years and chess for forty years as an
fro- poverty, chronic illnesses, calumnies, and injustices' In his
"r"up"
Libcr de Ludo )leae (Book on Games of Chance), published posthumously in
1663, he says one should gamble for stakes to compensate for the time lost
and he gives advice on how to cheat to insure that compensation.
After devoting his youth to mathematics, physics, and gambling, he
graduated from the University of Pavia in medicine. He practiced this art,
later taught it in Milan and Bologna, and became celebrated all over
Europe as a physician. He also served as professor of mathematics in several
Italian universities. In 1570 he was sent to prison for the heresy of casting
the horoscope ofJesus. Astonishingly, the pope subsequently hired him as
an astrologer. At seventy-five, shortly before his death in 1576, he boasted
of fame, a grandson, wealth, learning, powerful friends, belief in God, and
fourteen good teeth.
His writings embraced mathematics, astronomy, astrology, physics,
medicine, and an enormous variety of other subjects, including moral
aphorisms (to atone for his cheating at cards). Despite much training in the
sciences, Cardan was a man of his times; he firmly believed in astrology,
dreams, charms, palmistry, portents, and superstitions, and wrote many
volumes on these subjects. He is the rational apologist for these occult arts,
which, he contended, permit as much certitude as do navigation and medi-
cine. He also wrote encyclopedic treatises on the inhabitants ofthe universe,
that is, angels, demons, and various intelligences, including in these books
material undoubtedly stolen from his father's distinguished friend, Leonardo
da Vinci. The extant material fills about 7000 pages.
The syncretic tendency, exhibited by the natural philosophers in their
writings, which united all of reality in gigantic wor}s, is represented in
mathematics by Cardan. With uncritical diligence he brought together from
ancient, medieval, and contemporary sources the available mathematical
knowledge in an encyclopedic mass, using theoretical and empirical sources
equally. With his cherished magical and mystical number theory was
associated his predilection for algebraic speculation, which he carried
further than his contemporaries. In addition to being a celebrated doctor,
Cardan is distinguished from the other learned natural philosophers of the
sixteenth century by his deeper interest in mathematics, But mathematics
was not method to him; it was a special magical talent and an emotionally
charged form of speculation.
One of the lesser-known humanists, Ignazio Danti (1 537-86), a professor
of mathematics at Bologna, wrote a book on mathematics for laymen that
reduced all pure and applied mathematics to a series of synoptic tables. Le
seienzc matemati.chc ridotte in taaole (Bologna, 1577) is characteristic of the
classifying spirit of the times; it served to direct the course of mathematical
instruction in the schools of the late sixteenth century. Danti was one of the
few mathematicians and astronomers who advocated applied mathematics
as a branch oflearning (as did Galileo later). The subjects covered are signif-
icant because they show the range of mathematics at that time: arithmetic,
THE CLAMOR FOR THE REFORM OF SCTENCE 223
geometry, music, asEology, goniometry (especially measurement of volumes),

meteorology, dioptrics, geography, hydrography, mechanics, architecture,
military architecture, painting, and sculpture. The first four topics repre-
sented pure mathematics; the remainder, applied mathematics'
characteristic humanist efforts are also evident in the investigations into
mechanics by such learned mathematicians as Guidobaldo del Monte
(1545-1607), Bernadino Baldi (1553-1617), and Giovanni Battista Benedetti
works
( r sSO-so; . ih.re
-e., h"tdly grasped the theorems of Archimedes; the
of Pappus made more sense to them and had greater appeal because Pappus
elaboiated on the proofs given in the earlier Greek classics. They deviated
little from the Scholastics in tackling the standard problems and limited
themselves to the correction of individual statements and theorems. They
accepted much that was false and, in addition, lacked the ability to seParate
the living, vital ideas from the dead ones. Their humanistic schooling
inclined them to incorporate in Euclidean deductions all old and new
knowledge, regardless of how this squared with experiments' Consequently
their critical faculties were weakened and their own experience lost its value.
Their experimentation was free of magical ingredients and their erudition
was indeed primarily humanistic, but in principle and in essence they were
the last of ihe medievalists rather than the founders of new methods of
thought and research. The Italian mathematicians and physiciss Francesco
Maurolycus (1494-1575), Benedetti, Baldi, and del Monte, the men whom
Galileo later generously called his teachers, and who in some resPects
prepared the way for him, did not, because of their dependence on ancient
modes of thought, make ground-breaking contributions in formulating or
solving mathematical or physical problems.
5. The Clamor for the Reform of Science

As in the previous centuries of its existence, mathematics was to derive its
major inspirations and themes from physical science. However, for science to
flourish ii was essential that the Europeans break away from slavish adher-
ence to authority. A number of men realized that the methodology of science
must be changed; they initiated a real break with Scholasticism and the
uncritical acceptance of Greek knowledge.
One of the earliest to call clearly for a new approach to knowledge was
the famous Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)' Incredibly
endowed both physically and mentally, he achieved greatness as a linguist,
botanist, zoologist, anatomist, geologist, musician, sculptor, painter, archi-
tect, inventor, and engineer. Leonardo made quite a point of distrusting the
knowledge that scholars professed so dogmatically. These men of book
learning he described as strutting about pufied up and PomPous, adorned
not by iheir own labors but by the labors of others whose work they merely
224
repeated; they were but the reciters and trumpeters of other people's
learning. He also criticized the concepts, methods, and goals of the bookish
scholars because they did not deal with the real world. He almost boasted
that he was not a man of letters and could do bigger and better things by
learning from experience. And indeed he learned for himself many facts of
mathematics, some principles of mechanics, and the laws of equilibrium of
the lever. He made remarkable observations on the flight of birds, the flow
of water, the structure of rocks, and the structure of the human body. He
studied light, color, plants, and animals. Famous are his words, " If you do
not rest on the good foundations of nature you will labor with little honor
and less profit." Experience, he says, is never deceptive though ourjudgment
may be. " In the study of the sciences which depend upon mathematics,
those who do not consult nature but authors, are not the children of nature
but only her grandchildren. "
Leonardo did believe in the combination of theory and practice. He
says, " He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards
ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may be cast."
On the other hand, he said, theory without practice cannot survive and dies
as quickly as it lives. " Theory is the general; experiments are the soldiers,"
He wished to use theory to direct experiments.
Nevertheless, Leonardo did not fully grasp the true method of science.
In fact, he had no methodology, nor any underlying philosophy. His work
was that of a practical investigator of nature, motivated by aesthetic drives
but otherwise undirected. He was interested in and sought quantitative
relationships and in this respect was a forerunner ofmodern science. Ilowever,
he was not as consciously quantitative as Galileo. While his writings on
mechanics and science were used by such sixteenth-century men as Cardan,
Baldi, Tartaglia, and Benedetti, they were not the stimulus for Galileo,
Descartes, Stevin, and Roberval.
Leonardo's views on mathematics and his working knowledge and use
of it were peculiar to his time and illustrate its spirit and approach. Reading
Leonardo one finds many statements suggesting that he was a learned mathe-
matician and profound philosopher who worked on the level of the profes-
sional mathematician. He says, for example, "The man who discredits the
supreme certainty of mathematics is feeding on confusion, and can never
silence the contradictions of sophistical sciences, which lead to eternal
quackery . . . for no human inquiry can be called science unless it pursues its
path through mathematical exposition and demonstration." To pass beyond
observation and experience there was for him only one trustworthy road
through deceptions and mirages-mathematics. Only by holding fast to
mathematics could the mind salely penetrate thc labyrinth of intangible and
insubstantial thought. Nature works through mathematical laws and
nature's forces and operations must be studied through quantitative investi-
THE CLAMOR FOR THE REFORM OF SCIENCE 225
gations. These mathematical laws, which one must aPproach through

experience, are the goal of the study of nature. On the basis of such pro-
nouncements, no doubt, Leonardo is often credited with being a greater
mathematician than he actually was. When one examines Leonardo's note-
books one realizes how little he knew of mathematics and that his approach
was empirical and intuitive.
More influential in urging a reform of the methods of science was
Francis Bacon (1561-1626). Bacon sought methods of obtaining truths in
intellectual, moral, political, and physical spheres. Though changes were
already occurring in the methods of physical science during the sixteenth
century, the public at large and even many men of letters were not aware of
this. Bacon's lofty eloquence, wide learning' comPrehensive views, and bold
pronouncements as to the future made men turn more than a passing gaze
upon what was going on and note the " Great Instauration" he depicted.
He formulated trenchant aphorisms that caught their attention. When
people finally noted that science was beginning to make the advances
Bacon advocated, they hailed him as the author and leader ofthe revolution
he had merely perceived earlier. Actually he did understand the changes
taking place better than his contemporaries.
The salient feature of his philosophy was the confident and emphatic
announcement ofa new era in the progress of science. In 1605 he published
his treatise Adaancement of Learning; it was followed by the Nottum Organun
(New Method) of 1620. In the latter book he is more explicit. He points out
the feebleness and scanty results of prior efforts to study nature. Science,
he says, has served only medicine and mathematics or been used to train
immature youths. Progress lies in a change of method. All knowledge begins
with observation. Then he makes his extraordinary contribution : an insistence
on a " graduate and successive induction" instead of hasty generalization.
Bacon says, " There are two ways, and can only be two, of seeking and
finding truth. The one, from senses and particulars, takes a flight to the
most general axioms, and from those principles and their truths, settled
once for all, invents and judges of intermediate axioms. The other method
collects axioms from senses and particulars, ascending continuously and by
degrees, so that in the end it arrives at the more general axiomsl this latter
way is the true one, but hitherto untried." By " axioms " he means general
propositions arrived at by induction and suited to be the starting point of
deductive reasoning.
Bacon attacked the Scholastic approach to natural phenomena in these
words : " It cannot be that the axioms discovered by argumentations should
avail for the discovery ofnew works; since the subtlety of nature is greater
many times over than the subtlety of arguments. . . . Radical errors in the
first concoction of the mind are not to be cured by the excellence of func-
tions and remedies subsequent. . . . We must lead men to the particulars
226 TIIE RENAISSANCE
themselves, while men on their side must force themselves for a while to lay
their notions by and begin to familiarize themselves with the facts."
Bacon did not realize that science must measure so as to obtain quanti-
tative laws. He did not see, in other words, what kinds of gradual inquiries
were needed and the order in which they must be taken. Nor did he appreci-
ate the inventive genius that all discovery requires. In fact, he says that
" there is not much left to acuteness and strength of genius, but all degrees
of genius and intellect are brought to the same level."
Though he did not create it, Bacon issued the manifesto for the experi-
mental method. He attacked preconceived philosophical systems, brain
creations, and idle displays of learning. Scientific work, he said, should not
be entangled in a search for final causes, which belongs to philosophy. Logic
and rhetoric are useful only in organizing what we already know. Let us
close in on nature and come to grips with her. Let us not have desultory,
haphazard experimentation; Iet it be systematic, thorough, and directed.
Mathematics is to be a handmaiden to physics. In aII, Bacon offered a
fascinating program for future generations.
Another doctrine and program is associated with Francis Bacon,
though it antedates him. The Greeks had, on the whole, been content to
derive from their mathematics and science an understanding of nature's
ways. The few early medieval scientists and the Scholastics studied nature
largely to determine the final cause or purpose served by phenomena.
However, the Arabs, a more practical people, studied nature to acquire
power over it. Their astrologers, seers, and alchemists sought the elixir of life,
the philosopher's stone, methods of converting less useful to more useful
metals, and magic properties of plants and animals, in order to prolong man's
life, heal his sicknesses, and enrich him materially. While these pseudo-
sciences continued to flourish in medieval times, some of the more rational
Scholastics-for example, Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon-began to
envision the same goal, but by more proper scientific investigations. Thanks
to Francis Bacon's exhortations, the mastery of nature became a positive
doctrine and a pervasive motivation.
Bacon wished to put knowledge to use. He wanted to command nature
for the service and welfare of man, not to please and delight scholars. As he
put it, science was to ascend to axioms and then descend to works. In Tiz
Neu Atlantis Bacon describes a society of scholars provided with space and
equipment for the acquisition of useful knowledge. He foresaw that science
could provide man with "infinite commodities," " endow human life with
inventions and riches, and minister to the conveniences and comforts of
man." These, he says, are the true and lawful goals of science.
Descartes, in his Discourse on Method, echoed this thought:
It is possible to attain knowledge which is very useful in life, and irxtead
of that Speculative Philosophy which is taught in the Schools, we may
THE RIIIE OF EMPIRICISM 227
find a practical philosophy by means of which, knowing the force and the
action of fire, water, air, the stars' the heavens, and all other bodies that
environ us, as distinctly as we know the different crafts ofour artisans, we
can in the same way employ them in all those uses to which they are
adapted, and thus render ourselves the masters and possessors of nature'
The chemist Robert Boyle said, "The good of mankind may be much
increased by the naturalist's insight into the trades."
The challenge thrown out by Bacon and Descartes was quickly accepted,
and scientists plunged optimistically into the task of mastering as well as
understanding nature. These two motivations are still the major driving
forces, and indeed the interconnections between science and engineering
grew rapidly from the seventeenth century onward.
- This program was taken uP most seriously even by governments' The
French Academy of Sciences, founded by Colbert in 1666, and the Royal
Society of London, founded in 1662, were dedicated to the cultivation of
"such knowledge as has a tendency to use" and to making science " useful
as well as attractive,"
6. The Rise of EmPiricism

While reformers of science urged the return to nature and the need for
experimental facts, practically oriented artisans, engineers, and painters
were actually obtaining the hard facts of experience. Using the natural
intuitive approach of ordinary men and seeking not ultimate meanings but
merely helpful explanations of phenomena they encountered in their work,
these technicians obtained knowledge that in effect mocked the sophistical
distinctions, the long etymological derivations of meanings, the involved
logical arguments, and the pompous citation of Greek and Roman authorities
advanced by the learned scholars and even the humanists' Because the
technical accomplishments of Renaissance Europe were superior to and more
numerous than those achieved by any other civilization, the empirical
knowledge acquired in their pursuit was immense.
The artisans, engineers, and artists had to grapple with real and work-
able mechanical ideas and properties of materials. Nevertheless, the new
physical insights gained in this way were impressive. It was the spectacle
mike.r *ho, without discovering a single law ofoptics, invented the telescope
and the microscoPe. The technicians arrived at laws by attending to phenom-
ena. By measured, gradual steps, such as no speculative view of scientific
method has suggested, they obtained truths as profound and comprehensive
as any conjecture had dared to anticipate, Whereas the theoretical reficrmers
were bold, self-confident, hasty, ambitious, and contemPtuous of antiquity,
the practical reformers were cautious, modest, slow, and receptive to all
knowledge, whether derived from tradition or from observation' They
228 THE RENATSSANCE
\ilorked rather than speculated, dealt with particulars rather than generalities,
and added to science instead of defining it or proposing how to obtain it. In
physics, the plastic arts, and technical fields generally, experience rather
than theory and speculation became the new source of knowledge.
Coupled with the pure empiricism of the artisans and, indeed, in part
suggested by the problems they presented, was the gradual rise of systematic
observation and experimentation, carried out largely by a more learned
group. Greeks such as Aristotle and Galen had observed a great deal and had
discussed the inductions that might be made on the basis of observations; but
one cannot say that the Greels ever possessed an experimental science. The
Renaissance activity, very modest in extent, marks the beginning of the now
vast scientific enterprise. The most significant groups of Renaissance experi-
mentalists were the physiologists led by Andreas Vesalius (1514-64), the
zoologists led by Ulysses Aldrovandi (1522-1605), and the botanists led by
Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603).
fn the area of tJre physical sciences, the experimental work of William
Gilbert (1540-1603) on magnetism was by far the most outstanding. In his
famous De Magnetc ( 1600), he stated explicitly that we must start from
e:rperiments. Though he respected the ancients because a stream of wisdom
came from them, he scorned those who quoted others as authorities and did
not experiment or verifr what they were told. His series of cardully con-
ducted, detailed, and simple experiments is a classic in the experimental
method. Ife notes, incidentally, that Cardan, in De Rerum Varietatz, had,
described a perpetual-motion machine and comments, " May the gods
damn all such sham, pilfered, distorted worls, which do but muddle the
minds of tlre students."
We have been pointing out the variegated practical interests that led
to a vast expansion of the study of nature and the consequent impulse to
systematic experimentation. Side by side with this practical work, largely
independent but not oblivious of it, some men pursued the larger goal of
science-the understanding of nature. The work of the later Scholastics on
Iialling bodies, described in the preceding chapter, was continued in the
sixteenth century. Their predominant goal was to secure the basic laws of
motion. The work on projectile motion, often described as a response to
practical needs, was motivated far more by broad scientific interests in '
mechanics. The work of Copernicus and Kepler in astronomy (Chap. 12,
sec. 5) was certainly motivated by the desire to improve astronomical theory.
Even t}re artists of the Renaissance sought to penetrate to the essence of
reality.
Fortunately technicians and scientists began to recognize common
interests and to appreciate the assistance each could derive from the other.
The technicians of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the early engineers
who had relied on manual dexterity, mechanical ingenuitn and sheer
THE RISE OE EMPIRICISM 229
inventiveness and cared little for principles, became aware of the aid to
practice they could secure from theory. on their side scientists became aware
thrt the artisans were obtaining facts of nature that correct theory had to
comprehend, and that they could secure pregnant suggestions for investiga-
tion from the work.of the artisans. In the opening paragraph of his Dialogrus
conceming Two New scfunces (the sciences are strength of materials and the
theory oi motion), Galileo acknowledges this inspiration for his investiga-
tions. "The constant activity which you Venetians display in your famous
arsenal suggests to the studious mind a large field for investigation, especially
that part oi the work which involves mechanics; for in this department all
types of instruments and machines are constantly being constructed by many
#irurrr, among whom there must be some who, partly by inherited experi-
ences and partiy by their own observations, have become highly expert and
clever in explanation."
The practical and purely scientific interests were fused in the swen-
teenth century. When the larger principles and problems had emerged from
the empirical needs, and the mathematical knowledge of the Greeks had
b."o-. frUy available to the scientists, the latter were able to proceed more
effectively with pure science. Without losing sight of the goal of under-
standing ihe design ofthe universe, they also willingly sought to aid practice.
The outcome was an expansion in scientific activity on an unprecedented
scale, plus far-reaching and weighty technical improvements that culrninated
in the Industrial Revolution'
The great importance of the beginnings of modern science for us is, of
course, th;t it paved the way for the major developments in mathematics'
Its immediate *ur involvement with concrete problems. since the
"ffa"t
Renaissance mathematicians worked for the rePublics and Princes and
collaborated with architects and handworkers-Maurolycus was an engineer
for the city of Messina, Baldi was a mathematician for the Duke of Urbino,
Benedetti was the chiefengineer for the Duke of savoy, and Galileo was court
mathematician for the Grand Duke of Tuscany-they took up the observa-
tions and experiences of the practical people. Up to the time of Galileo, the
impact of the technicians and architects can be seen largely in the work of
Nicold Tartaglia (1506-57), a genius who was self-taught in the science
of his time. T.rtaglia made the transition from the practical to the learned
mathematician, singting out with discernment useful problems and obser-
vations from empirical knowledge. His uniqueness lies in this achievement
and in his complete independence from the magical influences that char-
acterizethe work of his rival Cardan. Tartaglia's position is midway between
Leonardo and Galileo-not merely chronologically, but because his work on
the mathematics of dynamical problems raised that subject to a new science
and influenced the forerunners of Galileo.
The long-range effect was that modern mathematics, guided by the
230
Platonic doctrine that it is the essence of reality, grew almost entirely out of
the problems of science. Under the new directive to study nature and to
obtain laws embracing observations and experimental results, mathematics
broke away from philosophy and became tied to physical science. The
consequence for mathematics was a burst of activity and original creation
that was the most prolific in its history.
Bibliograplry
Ball, W. W. R.: I Short Account of the History of Matlumati.cs, Dover (reprint), 1960,
Chaps. 12-13.
Burtt, E. A.z The Mclaphgsiral Foundations of Modtrn Phgsical Scicnce, Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1932.
Butterfeld, Herbert: Tlu Origins oJ Modem Scierce, Macmillan, 1951, pp. l-47,
Cajori, Florian: A Histnry of Matlumatics,2nd ed., Macmillan, 1919, pp. 128-45.
Cardano, Gerolamo: Opera Omnia, Johnson Reprint Corp., 1964.
Tlu Book of My L;,fe, Dover (reprint), 1962.
Tlu Book on Gamcs of Chanre, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.
Clagett, Marshall, ed.: Critiral Problens in thc History of Sci.erce , University of Wis-
-:
-: consin Press, 1959, pp. 3-196.
Crombie, A. C.t Augustiru ta Galileo, Falcon Press, 1952, Chaps. 5-6.
Robeil Grosseteste and tlu Origins of Expai.mcntal Scbntc, Oxford University
Press, 1953, Chap. I l.
Dampier-Whetham,
-: W. C. D.: A History oJ Scicnre, Cambridge University Press,
1929, Chap. 3.
Farrington, B.: Francis Bacon, }ler:ry Schuman, 1949.
Mason, S. F.z A Histary of tlu Scieues, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1953, Chaps.
13, 16, 19, and 20.
Ore, O.: Cardano : Tlu Ganbling Scholar, Princeton University Press, 1953.
Randall, John H., Jr.: Tlu Making of ilu Moden Mind, Houghton Miffiin, 1940,
Chaps. G-9.
Russell, Bertrand: A Histnry of Wcstern Philosophy, Simon and Schuster, 1945,
pp. 491-557.
Smith, David Eugene: History of Mathcmatics, Dover (reprint), 1958, Vol. l,
pp.24245, and Chap. 8.
Smith, Preserved: A History oJ Moden Culture, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1940,
Vol. l, Chaps. 5-6.
Strong, Edward '\N.: Procedurcs and Metaplrysics, University of California Press,
1936; reprinted by Georg Olms, 1966, pp. l-134.
Taton, Ren6, ed,z The Beginnings of Modern Science, Basic Books, l9&1, pp. 3-51,
pp. 82-177.
Vallentin, Antonina: Itonardo da Vinci, Viking Press, 1938.
White, Andrew D . z A History of tlu Warfare of Science with Theology , George Braziller
(reprint), 1955.
t2
Mathematical Contributions
in the Renaissance
The chiefaim ofall investigations of the external world should
be to discover the rational order and harmony which has
been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in
the language of mathematics. JoHANNES xEPLER
l. Paspectiae
Though the Renaissance men grasped only dimly the outlooks, values, and
goals of the Greek works, they did take some original stePs in mathematics;
and they made advances in other fields that paved the way for the tremen-
dous seventeenth-century uPsurge in our subject.
The artists were the first to manifest the renewal of interest in nature
and to apply seriously the Greek doctrine that mathematics is the essence
of nature's reality. The artists were selfl-taught and learned through practice.
Fragments of Greek knowledge filtered down to them, but on the whole
they sensed rather than grasped the Greek ideas and intellectual outlook'
To an extent this was an advantage because, lacking formal schooling, they
were free ofindoctrination. Also, they enjoyed freedom of expression because
their work was deemed " harmless."
The Renaissance artists were by profession universal men-that is,
they were hired by princes to perform all sorts of tasks from the creation of
great paintings to the design of fortifications, canals, bridges, war machines,
palaces, public buildings, and churches. Hence they were obliged to learn
mathematics, physics, architecture, engineering, stonecutting, metalworking,
anatomy, woodworking, optics, statics, and hydraulics. They performed
manual work and yet tackled the most abstract problems. In the fifteenth
century, at least, they were the best mathematical physicists'
To appreciate their contribution to geometry we must note their new
goals in painting. In the medieval period the glorification of God and the
illustration of biblical themes were the purposes of painting. Gilt back-
grounds suggested that the people and objects portrayed existed in some
23r
232 MATHEMATICAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE RENAISSANCE
heavenly region. Also the figures were intended to be symbolic rather than
realistic. The painters produced forms that were flat and unnatural and did
not deviate from the pattern. In the Renaissance the depiction of the real
world became the goal. Hence the artists undertook to study nature in order
to reproduce it faithfully on their canvases and were confronted with the
mathematical problem of representing the three-dimensional real world on
a two-dimensional canvas,
Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446) was the first artist to study and em-
ploy mathematics intensively. Giorgio Vasari ( l5I l-74), the Italian artist
and biographer, says that Brunelleschi's interest in mathematics led him to
study perspective and that he undertook painting just to apply geometry.
He read Euclid, Hipparchus, and Vitello on mathematics and optics and
learned mathematics from the Florentine mathematician Paolo del Pozzo
Toscanelli (1397-1482). The painters Paolo Uccello (1397-1475) and
Masaccio ( l40l-28) also sought mathematical principles for a system of
realistic perspective.
The theoretical genius in mathematical perspective was Leone Battista
Alberti (1404-72), who presented his ideas in Della pittura (1435), printed
in l5l l. This book, thoroughly mathematical in character, also includes
some work on optics. His other important mathematical work is Ludi
matlumatici (1450), which contains applications to mechanics, surveying,
time-reckoning, and artillery fire. Alberti conceived the principle that
became the basis for the mathematical system of perspective adopted and
perfected by his artist successors. He proposed to paint what one eye sees,
though he was well aware that in normal vision both eyes see the same
scene from slightly different positions and that only through the brain's re-
conciliation of the two images is depth perceived. His plan was to further
the illusion of depth by such devices as light and shade and the diminution
of color with distance. His basic principle can be explained in the follow-
ing terms. Between the eye and the scene he interposed a glass screen
standing upright. He then imagined lines of light running from the eye or
station point to each point in the scene itself. These lines he called a pyramid
of rays or a projection. Where these rays pierced the glass screen (the picture
plane), he imagined points marked out; the collection of points he called a
section. The significant fact about it is that it creates the same impression
on the eye as the scene itselt because the same lines of light come from the
section as from the original scene. Hence the problem ofpainting realistically
is to get a true section onto the glass screen or, in practice, on a canvas. Of
course the section depends upon the position of the eye and the position of
the screen. This means merely that different paintings of the same scene
can be made.
Since the painter does not look through his canvas to determine the
section, he must have rules based on mathematical theorems, which tell
233
him how to draw it. Alberti furnished some correct rulesl in his Della
littura, b:ut did not give all the details. He intended his book as a summary
to be supplemented by discussions with his fellow painters and, in fact,
apologizes for his brevity. He tried to make his material concrete, rather
than formal and rigorous, and so.gave theorems and constructions without
proof.
Beyond introducing the concepts of projection and section, Alberti
raised a very significant question. If two glass screens are interposed between
the eye and the scene itself, the sections on them will be different. Further,
if the eye looks at the same scene from two different positions and in each
case a glass screen is interposed between the eye and the scene, again the
sections will be different. Yet all these sections convey the original figure.
Hence they must have some properties in common. The question is, What
is the mathematical relation between any two of these sections, or what
mathematical properties do they have in common ? This question became
the starting point of the development of projective geometry.
Though a number of artists wrote books on mathematical perspective
and shared Alberti's philosophy of art, we can mention here only one or
two leaders. Leonardo believed that painting must be an exact reproduction
of reality and that mathematical perspective would permit this. It was "the
rudder and guide rope of painting" and amounted to applied optics and
geometry. Painting for him was a science because it reveals the reality in
nature; for this reason it is superior to Poetry, music, and architecture'
Leonardo's writings on perspective are contained in his Ttattato della pittura
(1651), compiled by some unknown author who used the most valuable of
Leonardo's notes on the subject.
The painter who set forth the mathematical principles of perspective
in fairly complete form is Piero della Francesca (c. 1410-92)' He, too, re-
garded perspective as the science of painting and sought to correct and
extend empirical knowledge through mathematics. His main work, De
prospettila pingendi (1482-87), made advances on Alberti's idea of projection
and section. In general, he gives procedures useful to artists and his direc-
tions employ strips of paper, wood, and the like. To help the artist he, like
Alberti, gives intuitively understandable definitions' He then offers theorems
which he " demonstrates " by constructions or by an arithmetical calcula-
tion of ratios. FIe was the painter-mathematician and the scientific artist
par excellence, and his contemporaries so regarded him. He was also the
best geometer of his time.
However, of all the Renaissance artists, the best mathematician was the
German Albrecht Diirer (1471-1528). His [Jnderweysang der Mesrung mid d'em
l. For some of these rules, and paintings constructed in accordance with them, see the
awthor's Mathematits in Western Culturz, Oxford University Press, 1953.
234 MATTTEMATTCAL CONTRTBUTIONS rN THE RENAIIIIiANCE
Zgrkcl und Rychtschtgd (lnstruction in Measuring with Compass and Straight-

edge, 1525), a work primarily on geometry, was intended to pass on to the
Germans knowledge D{irer had acquired in Italy and in particular to help
the artists with perspective. His book, more concerned with practice than
theory, was very influential.
The theory of perspective was taught in painting schools from the
sixteenth century onward according to the principles laid down by the
masters we have been discussing. Ilowever, their treatises on persPective had
on the whole been precept, rule, and ad hoc procedure; they lacked a solid
mathematical basis. In the period from 1500 to 1600 artists and subse-
quently mathematicians put the subject on a satisfactory deductive basis,
and it passed from a quasi-empirical art to a true science. Definitive works
on perspective were written much later by the eighteenth-century mathe-
maticians Brook Taylor and J. H. Lambert.
2. Geometry Proper
The developments in geometry aPart from perspective during the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries were not impressive. One of the geometric toPics
discussed by Diirer, Leonardo, and Luca Pacioli (c. 1445-c. l5l4), an
Italian monk who was a pupil of Piero della Francesca and a friend and
teacher of Leonardo, was the inscription of regular polygons in circles'
These men attempted such constructions with a straightedge and a compass
of fixed opening, a limitation already considered by the Arab Abir'l-WefA,
but they gave only approximate methods.
The construction of the regular Pentagon was a problem of great in-
terest because it arose in the design of fortifications. In the Elerncnts, Book
IV, Proposition I l, Euclid had given a construction not limited by a com-
pass of fixed opening. The problem of giving an exact construction with this
limitation was tackled by Tartaglia, Ferrari, Cardan, del Monte, Bene-
detti, and many other sixteenth-century mathematicians. Benedetti then
broadened the problem and sought to solve all Euclidean constructions with
a straightedge and a compass of fixed opening. The general problem was
solved by the Dane George Mohr (1640-97) in his Compendium Erclidis
Curiosi (1673).
Mohr also showed, in his Euclides Danicus (1672), that the constructions
that can be performed with straightedge and compass can be performed
with only a compass. Of course without a straightedge, one cannot draw
the straight line joining two points; but given the two points, one can con-
struct the points ofintersection ofthe line and the circle, and given two pairs
of points, one can construct the point of intersection ol the two lines deter-
mined by the two pairs. The fact that a comPass alone suffices to perform
GEOMETR.Y PROPER 235
the Euclidean constructions was rediscovered by Lorenzo Mascheroni

(1750-1800) and published in his -La geomctria ilel compasso (1797)'
Another of the Greek interests, centers of gravity of bodies, was also
taken up by the Renaissance geometers. Leonardo, for example, gave a
correct ;nd an incorrect method of finding the center of gravity of an
isosceles trapezoid. He then gave, without proof, the location of the center
of gravity of a tetrahedron, namely, the center is one-quarter of the way up
the line joining the center of gravity of the triangular base to the opposite
vertex.
Two novel geometric ideas appear in minor works by Diirer' The first
of these is space curves. He starts with helical space curves and considers
the projection ofthese curves on the plane. The projections are various types
of spirals and Diirer shows how to construct them. He also introduces the
epirycloid, which is the locus of a point on a circle that rolls on the outside
oi a fixed circle. The second idea is the orthogonal projection of curves and
of human figures on two and three mutually perpendicular planes' This
idea, which Diirer merely touched on, was developed in the late eighteenth
century into the subject of descriptive geometry by Gaspard Monge'
Tire work of Leonardo, Piero, Pacioli, and Diirer in pure geometry is
certainly not significant from the standpoint of new results. Its chief value
was thai it .prerd widely some knowledge of geometry, crude as that knowl-
edge was by Greek standards. The fourth part of Diirer's Undcrwcyang,
tog1th., with Piero's De Corporibus Regularibu's ( 1487) and Pacioli's Dc
Dloina proportione (1509), renewed interest in stereometry (mensuration of
solid figures), which flourished in Kepler's time.
Another geometrical activity, map'making, served to stimulate further
geometrical investigations. The geographical explorations had revealed the
i-nadequacies of thi existing maps; at the same time new geographical
knowlidge was being uncovered' The making and printing of maps was
begun in the second half of the fifteenth century at centers such as Antwerp
and Amsterdam.
The problem of map-making arises from the fact that a sphere cannot
be slit open and laid flat without distorting distance. In addition, directions
(angles) or area, or both, may be distorted. The most significant new method
of map-rn2Littt is due to Gerhard Kremer, known also as Mercator (1512-
94), who devoted his life to the science. In 1569 he put out a map using the
famous Mercator projection. In this scheme the lines of latitude and longi-
tude are straight. The longitude lines are equally spaced, but the spacing
between latitude lines is increased. The purpose of this increase is to keep
the ratio of a length of one minute of longitude to one minute of latitude
correct. On the sphere a change of t' in latitude equals 6087 feet; but only
on the equator is a change of l' in longitude equal to 6087 feet' For example,
%6 MATHEMATICAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE RENAISSANCE
at latitude 20o a change of f in longitude equals 5722 feet, producing the

ratio
l' change in longitude _ 5722
l-h-anseEEEtuat -
.
6087
For this true ratio to hold on Mercator's straightJine map, where longitude
lines are equally spaced and each minute of change equals 6087 feet, he
increases the spaces between latitude Iines by the factor l/cos Z as latitude
Z increases. At 20' latitude on his rnap a l' change in latitude equals a
distance of 6087 (l/cos 20'), or 6450 feet. Thus at latitude 20'
l' change in longitude 6087
-T-EandE-Etitra; - 6m'
and this ratio equals the true rutio of 572216087.
The Mercator map has several advantages. Only on this projection are
two points on the map at correct compass course from one another. Then a
course of constant compass bearing on the sphere, that is, a curve called a
loxodrome or rhumb line, which cuts all meridians at the same angle,
becomes a straight line on the map. Distance and area are not preserved;
in fact, the map distorts badly around the poles. However, since direction
is preserved, so is the angle between two directions at a point, and the map
is said to be conformal.
Though no large new mathematical ideas emerged from the sixteenth-
century work on map-making, the problem was taken over later by mathe-
maticians and led to work in differential geometry.
3.Algebra
Up to the appearance of Cardan's Ars Magna (1545)' which we shall treat
in the next chapter, there were no Renaissance developments of any conse-
quence in algebra. However, the work of Pacioli is worth noting. Like most
others of his century he believed that mathematics is the broadest systematic
learning and that it applies to the practical and spiritual life of all people.
He also realized the advantages of theoretical knowledge for practical work.
Theory must be master and guide, he tells the mathematicians and tech-
nicians. Like Cardan he belonged to the humanist circle. Pacioli's major
publication is the Summa de Arithmetica, Geometria, Proportione et Prolortionalita
(1a94). The Summa was a compendium of the available knowledge and was
representative of the times because it linked mathematics with a great
variety of practical applications.
The contents covered the Hindu-Arabic number symbols, which were
already in use in Europe, business arithmetic, including bookkeeping, the
algebra thus far created, a Poor summary of Euclid's Elements' and some
TR.IGONOMETRY
237
trigonometry taken from Ptolemy. The application of the concept of pro-

poitio. to reveal design in all phases of nature and_ in the universe itself was
u mujo. theme. Pacioli called proportion "mother" and "queen" and
applied it to the sizes of the parts of the human body, to perspective, and
.r"r, to mixing. His algebra is rhetorical ; he follows Leonardo and the
"olo,
Arabs in calling the unknown quantity the " thing'" The square of the
unknown Pacioli called ccnsus, which he sometimes abbreviates as ce ot Z1
the cube of the unknown, cuba, is sometimes represented by cu or C' Other
abbreviations for words, such as y' for plus arrd' a for aquali's, also occur' In
writing equations, whose coefficients are always numerical, he puts terms
on th;id; that permits the use of positive coefficients' Though an occasional
subtraction of a term, for example, -3r, does aPPear, no purely negative
numbers are usedl only the positive roots of equations are given' He used
algebra to calculate geometrical quantities much as we would use an
arithmetic proportion to relate the lengths of sides of similar triangles and
perhaps to fittJ o.re unknown length, though Pacioli's uses are often more
i.rrot,r.d. He closes his book with the remark that the solution of xs + mx
:
z and of xs 1 n : mx (we use modern notation) are as impossible as the
quadrature of the circle.
Though there was nothing original in the Summa, this book and his De
Diaina projortione were valuable because they contained much more than was
taught inihe universities. Pacioli served as the intermediary between what
exiJed in the scholarly works and the knowledge acquired by artists and
technicians. He tried to help these men learn and use mathematics. Never-
theless it is a significant commentary on the mathematical development
of
arithmetic and algebra between 1200 and 1500 that Pacioli's Summa' appear-
ing in 1494, contlaired hardly anything more than Leonardo of Pisa's Libcr
Aiaci of 1202. In fact, the arithmetic and algebra in the summa were based
on Leonardo's book.
4. Trigonometry
Until 1450, trigonometry was largely spherical trigonometry; surveying
continued to use the geometric methods of the Romans' About that date
plane
-pisa
trigonometry became important in surveying, though Leonardo of
in hii practica Geometriae (1220) had already initiated the method.
New work in trigonometry was done by Germans of the late fifteenth
and early sixteenth centuries, who usually studied in Italy and then returned-
to their native cities. At the time Germany had become ProsPerous, some of
the wealth having been acquired by the Hanseatic League of North Ger-
many, which conlrolled much trade; hence merchant Patrons were able
to srrpport the work of many of the men we shall mention' The trigonometric
work- was motivated by navigation, calendar-reckoning, and astronomy'
238 MATTTEMATTCAL coNTRrBUTroNs rN THE R!,NArssANcE
interest in the last-mentioned field having been heightened by the creation

of the heliocentric theory, about which we shall say more later.
George Peurbach (1423-61) of Vienna started to correct the Latin
translations of the Almagesf, which had been made from Arabic versions,
but which he proposed to make from the original Greek. He also began to
make more accurate trigonometric tables. However, Peurbach died young
and his work was taken up by his pupil Johannes Miiller (1436-76), known
as Regiomontanus, who vitalized trigonometry in Europe. Having studied
astronomy and trigonometry at Vienna under Peurbach Regiomontanus
went to Rome, studied Greek under Cardinal Bessarion (c. l4OV72), and,
collected Greek manuscripts from the Greek scholars who had fled the Turks.
In l47l he settled in Nuremberg under the patronage of Bernard Walther.
Regiomontanus made translations of several Greek works-the Conic Sections
of Apollonius and parts of Archimedes and Heron-and founded his own
press to print them.
Following Peurbach, he adopted the Hindu sine, that is, the half chord
of the half arc, and then constructed a table of sines based on a radius of
600,000 units and another based on a radius of 10,000,000 units. He also
calculated a table of tangents. In the Tabulae Directionum (written in 146,F-
67), he gave five-place tangent tables and decimal subdivision of the angles,
a very unusual procedure for those times.
Many men of the flfteenth and sixteenth centuries constructed tables,
among them George Joachim Rhaeticus (1514-76), Copernicus, Frangois
Vieta ( 1540-1 603), and Bartholomiius Pitiscus ( I 561-161 3). Characteristic
of this work was the use of a larger and larger number of units in the radius
so that the values of the trigonometric quantities could be obtained more
accurately without the use of fractions or decimals. For example, Rhaeticus
calculated a table ofsines based on a radius of 1010 units and another based
on l0l5 units, and gave values for every l0 seconds of arc. Pitiscus in his
Tlusanrus (1613) corrected and published the second table of Rhaeticus.
The word " trigonometry " is his.
More fundamental was the work on the solution of plane and spherical
trirangles. Until about 1450 spherical trigonometry consisted of loose rules
based on Greek, Hindu, and Arabic versions, the last of which came from
Spain. The works of the Eastern Arabs Abr?l-Wefi and NAsir-Eddin were
not known to Europe until this time. Regiomontanus was able to take
advantage of Nisir-Eddin's work, and in Da Triangulis, written in L46Z4S,
put together in more effective fashion the available knowledge of plane
trigonometry, spherical geometry, and spherical trigonometry. He gave the
law of sines for spherical triangles, namely
sin a sin D sin c

sinl-:sina:-snC
239
I
I
l/
Figure l2.l C
and the law of cosines involving the sides, that is,

cos n : cos, cos c * sin D sin c cos.l4'
The De Triangulis was not published until 1533; in the meantime' Johann
Werner(1468-1528)improvedandpublishedRegiomontanus'sideasin
De Tiangulis SPhaeticis (1514).
Fo, L.rry y"urs .fie. the work of Regiomontanus spherical
trigonom-
etry continuei io be troubled by the need for multitude of formulas'
-a Copernicus a
partly becarrse Regiomontanus in his De Triangulis, and even
^"..rrr.y later, useJ only the sine and cosine functions' Also the negative
lrul.r", of the cosine and tangent functions for obtuse angles were not recog-
nized as numbers.
Rhaeticus, who was a pupil of Copernicus, changed the meaning of
sine. Instead oi rp"ukirrg of rif lfig. 12. 1) as the sine of lD,
he spoke of'tlB
expressed in
as the sine of arril. AO-8. How.*ei, the length of AB was still
a number of unil dependent on the number of units chosen for the length
of the radius. As a consequence of Rhaeticus's change, the triangle- OIB
becamethebasicstructure.andthecirclewithradiusoz{incidental.Rhaeti-
cus used all six functions.
Plane and spherical trigonometry were further systematized and- ex-
tended slightly by Frarrqois Vieta, a lawyer by profession but recognized
far more as the foremost mathematician of the sixteenth century. His
Canon Mathematicus (1579) was the first of his many works
on trigonometry'
Here he gathered together the formulas for the solution of right and oblique
plane triingles, including his own contribution, the law of tangents:
a-b -"(+1
;T i,
-"(H
to
For spherical right triangles he gave the complete set of formulas needed
.rry oi. part in termslf two other known parts, and the rule for
"alc.r'Iut"
remembering this collection of formulas, which we now call Napier,s rule.

He also contributed the law of cosines involving the angles of an oblique
spherical riangle:
cos z4 : -cos .B cos C -p sin .B sin C cos a.
Many trigonometric identities had been established by ptolemy;

Vieta added to these. For example, he gave the identity
sinl - sin B : z
B
"o"Lj! "inA,
and identities for sin zd and cos z0 in terms of sin d and cos d. The latter
identities are contained in his Sectiones Angulares, published posthumously in
1615.2 Vieta expressed and worked with the identities in algebraic form,
though the notation was by no means modern.
He used the formula for sin z0 to solve the problem posed by the
Belgian mathematician Adrianus Romanus (1561-1615) in his book ldeae
Mathematicae (1593) as a challenge to all Frenchmen. The problem was to
solve an equation of the forty-fifth degree in .r. Henry IV of France sent
for Vieta, who recognized that the problem amounted to this : Given the
chord of an arc,.to find the chord of the forty-fifth part of that arc. This is
equivalent to expressing sin 451 in terms of sin I and finding sin l. If
# : sin I then the algebraic equation is of the forty-fifth degree in .t. Vieta
knew that problem could be solved by breaking this equation up into a
fifth-degree equation and two third-degree equations; these he solved
quickly. IIe gave the 23 positive roots but ignored the negative ones. fn
his Rzsponsum (1595)3 he explained his method of solution.
In the sixteenth century, trigonometry began to break away from
astronomy and acquire status as a branch of mathematics. The application
to astronomy continued to be extensive, but other applications-as, for
example, surveying-warranted the study of the subject from a more de-
tached viewpoint.
5. The Major Scientific Progress in the Renaissance

The Renaissance mathematicians prepared the ground for the upsurge of
mathematical study in Europe by translating the Greek and Arabic works
and by compiling encyclopedic works on the existing knowledge. But the
motivations and directions of the subsequent mathematical creations of the
Europeans stemmed primarily from scientific and technological problems,
2. Opera, Leyden, 1646, 287-304.

3. Opera, 305-24.
MAJOR SCTENTTFTC PROCRESS rN TIIE RENATSSANCE 24r
though there were some exceptions. The rise of algebra was, at least at the
outsJ, a continuation of Arab lines of activity; and some new work in
geometry was suggested by problems raised by artists'
By iut tt ,"*t significant Renaissance development in motivating the
"
mathematics of the next two centuries was the revolution in astronomy
led
the Greek works became available' after
by Copernicus and Kepler. When
ubort i200, both Aristotle's astronomical theory (a modification of Eudoxus')
and Ptolemy's theory became widely known and were pitted against each
other. Stric;ly speaking, various additions to both schemes had been intro-
duced by the Arabs and the Iate medieval astronomers to improve the
accuracyofbothsystemsortoaccommodateAristotle'sschemetoChristian
theology. Ptolemy;s scheme, reasonably accurate for the time, was
purely
mathematical and hence regarded only as a hypothesis, not a description
of real structures. Aristotle's iheory was the one most men accepted,
though
Ptolemy's was more useful for astronomical predictions, navigation' and
calendar-reckoning.
A few Arab, late medieval, and Renaissance figures, including-al-
Birtrni (973-1048), Oresme, and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-64)'
perhaps responding to Greek ideas, seriously considered that the earth
mighi be .oiatirg and that it might be equally possible to build an astro-
,roili"ul theory on the basis of the earth moving around the sun' but none
worked out a new theory.
Among astronomers, Nicholas Copernicus suddenly appeared as a
colossus. Bo.n i., Thorn, Poland , in 1473' Copernicus studied mathematics
and science at the University of Cracow. At the age of twenty-three he went
to Bologna to further his studies and there became familiar with Pythagorean
and oti'er Greek doctrines, including astronomical theory' He also studied
medicine and church law. In t5l2 he returned to Poland to become canon
(an administrator) at the Cathedral of Frauenberg where he remained
untilhisdeathin1543.Whileperforminghisdutieshedevotedhimselfto
intensive studies and observations that culminated in a revolutionary astro-
nomical theory. This achievement in the domain of thought outclasses in
significance, boldness, and grandeur the conquest of the seas'
It is difficult to determine what caused Copernicus to overthrow the
fourteen-hundred-year-o1d Ptolemaic theory' The indications
in the preface
ofhisclassicwork,DaReuolutionibusorbiumCoelcstiulz(ontheRevolutions
of the Heavenly Spheres, 1543) are incomplete and somewhat enigmatic'
Copernicus states tiat he was aroused by divergent views on the
accuracy
that the Ptolemaic theory was just a
of ihe Ptole*aic system, by the view
conflict between adherents of the Aristo-
convenient hypothesis, and by the
telian and Ptolemaic theories'
Copernicus retained some principles of Ptolemaic astronomy' He
used
the circie as the basic curve on which his explanation of the motions of the
242 MATIIEMATICAL CONTRTBUTTONS rN THE RENATSSANCE
heavenly bodies was to be constructed. Moreover, like Ptolemy, he used the

fact that the motion of the planets must be built up through a sequence of
motions with constant speed. His reason was that a change in speed could
be caused only by a change in motive power, and since God, the cause of
motion, was constant, the effect had to be, as well. He also took over the
Greek scheme of epicyclic motion on a deferent. But Copernicus objected
to the uniform equant motion utilized by Ptolemy because this motion did
not call for uniform Iinear velocity.
By using Aristarchus' idea of putting the sun rather than the earth at
the center of each deferent, Copernicus was able to replace the complicated
diagrams formerly required to portray the motion of each heavenly body
by much simpler ones. Instead of 77 circles he needed only 34 to explain
the motion of the moon and the six known planets. Later he refined this
scheme somewhat by putting the sun near but not quite at the center of the
system.
Copernicus's theory was not in better accord with observations than
the current modifications of Ptolemy's theory. The merit of his system was
ratler that it made the motion of the earth around the sun account for the
major irregularities in the motions of the planets without employing as many
'
epicycles. Moreover, his scheme treated all the planets in the same general
way, whereas Ptolemy had used somewhat different schemes for the inner
planets, Mercury and Venus, than for the outer planets, Mars, Jupiter, and
Saturn. Finally, the calculation of the positions of the heavenly bodies was
simpler in Copernicus's scheme, so much so that even in 1542 astronomers,
using his theory, began preparation of new tables of celestial positions.
Copernicus's theory met both sound and prejudiced opposition. The
discrepancies between Copernican theory and observations caused Tycho
Brahe (1546-1601) to abandon the theory and seek a compromise. Vieta,
for the same reason, rejected it altogether and turned to improving Ptole-
maic theory. Most intellectuals rejected the theory either because they
failed to understand it or because they would not entertain revolutionary
ideas. The mathematics certainly was difficult to understand I as Copernicus
himself said in his preface, the book was addressed to mathematicians. The
observation of a new star by Brahe and German astronomers in 1572 did
help; the sudden appearance and disappearance of stars contradicted the
Aristotelian and Scholastic dogma of the invariability of the heavens.
The fate of the heliocentric theory would have been very uncertain
were it not for the work ofJohannes Kepler (1571-1630). He was born in
Weil, a city in the Duchy of Wiirttemberg. His father was a drunkard who
turned from being a soldier of fortune to keeping a tavern. While attending
elementary school, Kepler had to help in the tavern. fle was then with-
drawn from school and sent to work as a laborer in the fields. When still a
boy he contracted smallpox, which left him with crippled hands and im-
MAJOR SCTEI{TTFTC PROGRESS rN THE RENATSSANCE 243
paired eyesight. However, he managed to get a bachelor's degree at the

bollege of Maulbronn in I58B; then, headed for the ministry, he studied at
the U:niversity of Tiibingen. There a friendly professor of mathematics and
asronomy, Michael M2istlin (M<istlin, 1550-1631) taught him Copernican
theory privately. Kepler's superiors at the university questioned his devout-
,.., u.i in 1594 offered him a professorship of mathematics and morals at
Grzitz in Austria, which Kepler accepted. To fulfill his duties he was re-
quired to know astrology; this turned him further toward astronomy'
Kepler was expelled from Griitz when the city came under Catholic
control, and he became an assistant to Tycho Brahe in the latter's observa-
tory at Prague. When Brahe died, Kepler was appointed to his place' Part
of iri, .job ias to cast horoscopes for his employer, EmPeror Rudolph II'
Keplei consoled himself with the thought that astrology enabled astronomers
to make a living.
DuringhisentirelifeKeplerwasharassedbyallsortsofdifficulties.
His first wife several children died. As a Protestant, he suffered in
"nd
various ways from persecution by Catholics. He was often in desperate
financial state. His mother was accused of witchcraft and Kepler had to
defend her. Yet throughout all his misfortunes he pursued his scientific
work with perseverance, extraordinary labor, and fertile imagination'
In his approach to scientific problems Kepler is a transitional figure'
Like Copernicus and the medieval thinkers he was attracted by a Pretty
and rational theory. He accepted the Platonic doctrine that the universe is
ordered according to a preestablished mathematical plan. But unlike his
predecessors, he had an immense regard for facts. His more mature work
was based entirely on facts and advanced from facts to laws. In the search
for laws he displayed inventiveness in hypotheses, a love of truth, and a
Iively fancy ptayi"g with but not obstructing reason. Though he devised a
gr"ui ,,r-b.t ol hypotheses he did not hesitate to discard them when they
did not fit the liacts.
Moved by the beauty and harmony of Copernicus's system, he decided
to devote himself to the search for whatever additional geometrical har-
monies the much more accurate observations supplied by Tycho Brahe
might permit. His search for the mathematical relationships of whose exist-
t. was convinced Ied him to spend years following up false trails. In
""""
the preface to his Mgsterium Cosmographicum (1596), we find him saying: " I
undertake to Prove that God, in creating the universe and regulating the
order ofthe had in view the five regular bodies of geometry as known
"ornlor,
since the days of Pythagoras and Plato, and that he has fixed according to
those dimensions, the number of heavens, their proportions, and the rela-
tions of their movements."
And so he postulated that the radii of the orbits of the six planets were
the radii of spheres related to the five regular solids in the following way. The
largest radius was that of the orbit of Saturn. In a sphere of this radius he
supposed a cube to be inscribed. In this cube a sphere was inscribed whose
radius should be that of the orbit ofJupiter. In this sphere he supposed a
tetrahedron to be inscribed and in this, in turn, another sphere, whose
radius was to be that ofthe orbit of Mars, and so on through the five regular
solids. This allowed for six spheres, just enough for the number of planets
then known. Flowever, the deductions from this hypothesis were not in
accord with observations and he abandoned the idea, but not before he
had made extraordinary efforts to apply it in modified form.
Although the attempt to use the five regular solids to ferret out nature's
secrets did not succeed, Kepler was eminently successful in later efforts to
find harmonious mathematical relations. His most famous and important
results are known today as Kepler's three laws of planetary motion. The
first two were published in a book of 1609 bearing a long title, which is
sometimes shortened to Astronomia Nooa and sometimes to Commentaries on the
Motions oJ Mars.
The first law states that the path of each planet is not the resultant of
a combination of moving circles but is an ellipse with the sun at one focus
(Fig. 12.2). Kepler's second law is best understood in terms of a diagram
(Fig. 12.3). The Greeks, we saw, believed that the motion of a planet must
be explained in terms of constant linear speeds. Kepler, like Copernicus, at
first held firmly to the doctrine of constant speeds. But his observations
compelled him to abandon this cherished belief too. His joy was great when
he was able to replace it by something equally attractive, for his conviction
that nature follows mathematical laws was reaffirmed . If MM' and imf'
are distances traversed by a planet in equal intervals of time, then, according
to the principle of constant speed,, MM'and .lmf'would have to be equal
distances. However, according to Kepler's second law, MM' and NN' are
generally not equal but the areas SMM'and Sr'[/['are equal. Thus Kepler
replaced equal distances by equal areas. To wrest such a secret from the
planets was indeed a triumph, for the relationship described is by no means
as easily discernible as it may appear to be on paper.
Kepler made even more extraordinary eflorts to obtain the third law of
motion. This law says the square of the period of revolution of any planet is
equal to the cube of its average distance from the sun, provided the period
of the earth's revolution and its distance from the sun are the units of time
MAJOR SCTENTTFTC PROGRESS rN THE RENATSSANCE 245
and distance.4 Kepler published this result in The Hannony of the world
(161e).
' ("pl"r's work is far more revolutionary than Copernicus's; equally
daring in adopting heliocentrism, Kepler broke radically from authority
urrd by utltiring the ellipse (as opposed to a composition ofcircular
tlditio,
motions) and nonuniform velocities. He hewed firmly to the position that
scientific investigations are independent of all philosophical and theo-
logical doctrines, that mathematical considerations alone should determine
th"e wisdom of any hypothesis, and that the hypotheses and deductions
from them must stand the test of empirical confirmation'
The work of Copernicus and Kepler is remarkable on many accounts'
but we must confine ourselves to its relevance to the history of mathematics'
In view of the many serious counter-arguments against a heliocentric theory,
their work de-orrtrates how strongly the Greek view that the truths of
nature lie in mathematical laws had already taken hold in Europe'
There were weighty scientific objections, many of which had already
been advanced by Ptolemy against Aristarchus' suggestion' How could
such
a heavy body as ihe be set into and kept in motion ? The other planets
"r.th
were in motion, even according to Ptolemaic theory, but the Greeks and
medieval thinkers had maintained that these were composed of some special
light substance. There were other objections' Why, if the earth rotates from
w"est to east, does an object thrown up into the air not fall back
to the west
of its original position i Why doesn't the earth fly apart in its rotation_?
Coperrici,s,s very weak answer to the latter question was that the sphere is
a iatural shape and moves naturally, and hence the earth would not
destroy itself. iurther, it was asked, why do objects on the earth and the air
itself stay with an earth rotating at about 3/10 of a mile per second and
revolving around the sun at the rate of about l8 miles Per second ? If, as
Ptotem/and Copernicus believed, the speed of a body in natural motion-
is proportional to its weight' the earth should leave behind it objects of
lesre. w"ight. copernicus replied that the air possessed " earthiness " and
would therefore stay with the earth.
Therewereadditionalscientificobjectionsfromastronomers.Ifthe
earth moved, why did the direction of the " fixed " stars not change ? An
angle of parall ax'of 2, required that the distance of the stars be at least
four
*Jlio' ti*"s the radius of the earth ; such a distance was inconceivable at
that time. Not detecting any parallax of the stars (which implied that they
hadtobeevenfartheraway),Copernicusdeclaredthat..theheavensare
immense by comparison with the Earth and aPPear to be of infinite size' ' ' '
The bounds of thi universe are unknown and unknowable." Then, realizing
the inadequacy of this answer, he assigned the problem to the philosophers
4. Though Kepler stated it this way, the correct statement calls for replacing average
distance by the semimajor axis.
246 MATHEMATTCAL coNTRrBUTroNs rN THE RENATSSANCE
and thereby evaded it. Not until IBSB did the mathematician Bessel measure
the parallax of one of the nearest stars and find it to be 0.31'.
If Copernicus and Kepler had been "sensible" men, they would never
have defied their senses. We do not feel either the rotation or the revolution
of the earth despite the high speeds involved. On the other hand, we do see
the motion of the sun-
Copernicus and Kepler were highly religious; yet both denied one of
the central doctrines of Christianity, that man, the chief concern of God,
was at the center of the universe, and everything in the universe revolved
around him, In contrast, the heliocentric theory, by putting the sun at the
center of the universe, undermined this comforting dogma of the Church,
because it made man appear to be just one of a possible host of wanderers
drifting through a cold sky. It seemed less likely that he was born to live
gloriously and to attain paradise upon his death. Less likely, too, was it that
he was the object of God's ministrations. Thus, by displacing the earth,
Copernicus and Kepler removed a cornerstone of Catholic theology and
imperiled its structure. Copernicus pointed out that the universe is so im-
mense, compared to the earth, that to speak of a center is meaningless,
However, this argument put him all the more into opposition with religion.
Against all the objections Copernicus and Kepler had only one retort,
but a weighty one. Each had achieved mathematical simplification and,
indeed, overwhelmingly harmonious and aesthetically superior theory. If
mathematical relationships were to be the goal of scientific work, and if a
better mathematical account could be given, then this fact, reinforced by
the belief that God had designed the world and would clearly have used
the superior theory, was sufrcient to outweigh all objections. Each felt, and
clearly stated, that his work revealed the harmony, symmetry, and design
of the divine workshop and overpowering evidence of God's presence.
Copernicus could not restrain his gratification: "We find, therefore, under
this orderly arrangement, a wonderful symmetry in the universe, and a
definite relation of harmony in the motion and magnitude of the orbs, of a
kind that it is not possible to obtain in any other way." The very title of
Kepler's work of 1619, Thc Hannony of the World, and endless paeans to God,
expressing satisfaction with the grandeur of God's mathematical design,
attest to his beliefs.
It is not surprising that at first only mathematicians supported the
heliocentric theory. Only a mathematician, and one convinced that the
universe was mathematically designed, would have had the mental fortitude
to disregard the prevailing philosophical, religious, and physical beliefs.
Not until Galileo focused his telescope on the heavens did astronomical
evidence favor the mathematical argument. Galileo's observations, made in
the early 1600s, revealed four moons circling around Jupiter, showing that
planets could have moons. It followed that the earth, too, need not be more
2+7
BIBLIOGRAPITY
than a planet just because it had a moon' Galileo also observed that the
*oon h.d a rough surface and mountains and valleys like the earth' Hence
the earth was also likely to be just one more heavenly body and not neces-
sarily the center of the universe.
th. heliocentric theory finally won acceptance because it was simpler for
calculations, because of its superior mathematics, and because observations
supported ii. fni, meant thaa the science of motion had to be recast in the
tight ofa rotating and revolving earth. In brief, a new science of mechanics
was needed,
Investigations into light and optics continued in an unbroken line from
what we haie already noted in the medieval period. In the sixteenth century
the astronomers became more interested in these subjects because the re-
fractive effect of air on light changes the direction of light rays as they come
from the planets and stars and so gives misleading information as to the direc-
tions of these bodies. Toward the end of the sixteenth century, the tele-
scopeandmicroscopewereinvented.Thescientificusesoftheseinstruments
ex-
are obvious; they opened uP new worlds, and interest in optics' already
tensive, surged stili higher. Almost all of the seventeenth-century mathe-
maticians worked on light and lenses.
6. Remarks on the Renaissance

The Renaissance did not produce any brilliant new results in mathematics'
The minor progress in this area contrasts with the achievements in literature'
painting, l."hite"ture, where masterpieces that still form part of our
"rdcreated, and in science, where the heliocentric theory eclipsed
"rlt,rr"**.."
the best of Greek astronomy and dwarfed any Arabic or medieval contri-
the
butions. For mathematics the period was primarily one of absorption of
Greek works. It was not ro a rebirth as a recovery of an older culture'
-rr"h
Equally important for the health and growth of mathematics was that
it had tnce *oi., u. in Alexandrian times, reestablished its intimate con-
nections with science and technology. In science the realization that mathe-
the
matical laws are the goal, the be-all and the end-aIl, and in technology'
appreciationthatthe-mathematicalformulationoftheresultsofinvestiga-
tiorr. w", the soundest and most useful form of knowledge and the surest
guide to design and construction, guaranteed that mathematics was to be a
tajor force in modern times and gave promise of new developments'
Bibliograplty
Armitage, Angts Copcmicus, W. W' Norton, 1938'
John KePter, Faber and Faber, 1966'
Sun, Stind Then Stilt, Henry Schuman, 1947; in paperback as The World
oJ Copernicus, New American Library, l95l'
248 MATHEMATICAL CoNTRTBUTTONS rN THE RENATSSANCE
Ball, W. W. Rouse: A Short Account of tlu History of Matlumatics, Dover (reprint),

1960, Chap. 12.
Baumgardt, Carola: Johannes Kepler, Life and l*tters, Victor Gollancz, 1952.
Berry, Arthur: A Shorl Hislory of Astronomy, Dover (reprint), 1961, pp.86-197.
Braunmiihl, A. von:, Vorlesungen ilber die Gxchichte der Trigonometri.e, 2 vols., B. G.
Teubner, 1900 and 1903, reprinted by M. Sandig, 1970.
Burtt, E. A.: The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science,2nd ed., Rout-
ledge and Kegan Paul, 1932, Chaps. l-2.
Butterfield, Herbert: The Origins of Modern Science, Macmillan, 1951, Chaps. 1-7.
Cantor, Moritz: Vorlesungen iiber Geschichte der Mathematik,2nd ed., B. G. Teubner,
1900, Vol. 2, pp. l-344.
Caspar, Max: Johannes Kepln, trans. Doris Hellman, Abelard-Schuman, 1960.
Cohen, I. Bernard: The Birth of a New Piysics, Doubleday, 1960.
Coolidge, Julian L, : Thc Matlumatics of Great Amateurs, Dover (reprint), 1963,
Chaps.3-5.
Copernicus, Nicolaus: De Reaolutianibus Orbium Coelesrium (1543), Johnson Reprint
Corp., 1965.
Crombie, A. C.; Augustiru to Galileo, Falcon Press, 1952, Chap. 4.
Da Vinci, Leonardo: Philosophical Dzary, Philosophical Library, 1959.
Treatise on Painting, Princeton University Press, 1956.
Dampier-Whetham, William C. D.: A History of Scicnce, Cambridge University
-i Press, 1929, Chap. 3.
Dijksterhuis, E. l.: The Mechanizatian oJ the World Picture, OxIord IJniversity Press,
1961, Parts 3 and 4.
Drake, Stillman and I. E. Drabkin: Mechani,cs in Sixteenth-Century ltalg, University
of Wisconsin Press, 1969.
Dreyer, J. L.E,: A Hi.story of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler, Dover (reprint), 1953,
Chaps. 12-16.
Tgcho Bralu, A Picture of Scientifc Life and Work in the Sixteenth Century,
Dover (reprint), 1963.
Gade,John
-: A.: The Life and Times of Tgcho Brahe, Princeton University Press, 1947.
Galilei, Galileo: Dialoguc on lhe Great World Systems (1632), University of Chicago
Press, 1953.
Hall, A. R.: Tlu Scientfic Reaolution, Longmans Green, 1954, Chaps. l-6.
Hallerberg, Arthur E. : " George Mohr and Euclidis Curiosi," The Mathematics
Teacher, 53, 1960, 127-32.
........-.........._:
"The Geometry of the Fixed-Compass," The Matlumatics Teacho, 52,
1959,23044.
Hart, Ivor B,: The World of l*onardo da Vinci, Viking Press, 1962.
Hofmann, Joseph E.: The History of Mathemalics, Philosophical Library, 1957.
Hughes, Barnabas: Regiomontanus on Triangles, University of Wisconsin Press, 1967.
A translation of De Tri.anguli.s.
Ivins, W. M., Jr.: Art and Geomztry (1946), Dover (reprint), 1965.
Kepler, Johannes: Gesammelte Werke, C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1938-59.
Concerning the More Certain Foundations of Astrology, Cancy Publications,
1942, Many of Kepler's books have been reprinted and a few translated.
249
Koyr6, Alexandre: From thc Ctoscd Woild to th, Irfinite [Jnfuerse, Jobr:s Hopkins Press,
1957.
La Rioolution astronomique, Hermann, 1961.
Kuhn, Thomas S.: Tlu Copuni.can Rcaolution, Harvard University Press, 1957'
MacCurdy, Edward: The Noteboolcs of Lconartlo da virui, Georye Braziller (reprint),
1954.
Pannekoek, A.: A Histary oJ Astronomy, iohn Wiley and Sons, 1961, Chaps' 16-25'
Panofsky, F.;rwin: " Dilrer as a Matlumatician," in James R' Newman, Tlu World of
Mathematics, Simon and Schuster, 1956, pp' 603-21'
Santillana, G. d'e: Thc Crime of Galileo, University of Chicago Press, 1955'
sarton, George: Ttu Appreciation of Anci.ent and Medieoal scitnce During the Rznaissarce,
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1955.
Six Wings: Men oJ Scierce in the Rznaissance, Indiana University Press,
1957.
Smith, David Eugene: History of Mattumatics, Dover (reprint), 1958, Vol' l, Chap'
-t
8; Vol. 2, Chap. 8.
Smith, Preserve d: A History of Modern Culture, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1930,
Vol. l, Chaps. 2-3.
Taylor, Henry Osborn: Thought antl Exprcssion it the Sixteenth Ccntury, Ctowell-
Collier (reprint), 1962, Part V.
Taylor, R. Emmet: No Royal Road: Lua Pacioli and His Tdmcs, University of North
Carolina Press, 1942.
Tropfke, Johannes: Geschichtc tler Elcmentarmatlumatik, 7 vols', 2nd' ed', W' De
Gruyter, l92l-24.
vasari, Giorgio : Liaes of the Most Eminent Painters, sculptors, and Architects (marry
editions).
Wolf, Abraham: A History of in tlu Sixtccnth and
Sciznce, Tcchnology and Phihsophy
Allen and IJnwin, 1950, Chaps' l-6'
Seaenteedh Centuries, George
Zeller, Sister Mary Claudia: "The Development of Trigonometry from Regio-
montanus to Pitiscus ", Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 19'14;
Edwards Brothers, 1946.
r3
Arithmetic and Algebra in the
Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries
Algebra is the intellectual instrument for rendering clear the

quantitative aspects of the world.
ALPRED NORTH II,IIITEHEAD
l. Introduction
The first major new European mathematical developments took place in
arithmetic and algebra. The Hindu and Arabic work had put practical
arithmetical calculations in the forefront of mathematics and had placed
algebra on an arithmetic instead of a geometric basis. This work also
attracted attention to the problem of solving equations.
In the first half of the sixteenth century there was hardly any change
from the Arab attitude or spirit, but merely an increase in the kind of
activity the Europeans had learned about from the Arab worlc. By the middle
of the century the practical and scientific needs of European civilization
were prompting further steps in arithmetic and algebra. Technological
applications of scientific work and practical needs require, as we have
pointed out, quantitative results. For example, the far-ranging geographical
explorations required more accurate astronomical knowledge. At the same
time the interest in correlating the new astronomical theory with increas-
ingly accurate observations demanded better astronomical tables, which in
turn meant more accurate trigonometric tables. In fact, a good deal of the
sixteenth-century interest in algebra was motivated by the need to solve
equations and work with identities in making trigonometric tables. Develop-
ing banking and commercial activities called for an improved arithmetic.
The response to these interests is evident in the writings of Pacioli, Tartaglia,
and Stevin, among oihers. Pacioli's Summa and Tartaglia,s General trittaro
de' numeri c misura (1556) contain an immense number of problems in mercan-
tile arithmetic. Finally, the technical work of the artisans, especially in
architecture, cannon-making and projectile motion, called for quantitative
thinking. Beyond these applications, a totally new use for algebra-the
250
STATUS OF THE NUMBER SYSTEM AND ARTTHMETTC 25r
representation of curves-motivated an immense amount of work' Under

thi pressure of these needs, progress in algebra accelerated'
We shall consider the new developments under four headings: arith-
metic, symbolism, the theory of equations, and the theory of numbers'
2. The Status the Number System and Aithmetic

d
By 1500 or so, zero was accepted as a number and irrational numbers were
used more freely. Pacioli, the German mathematician Michael stifel (1486?-
1567), the miliiary engineer Simon Stevin (1548-1620), and Cardan used
irrational numbers in the tradition of the Hindus and Arabs and introduced
more and more tyPes' Thus Stifel worked with irrationals of the form
y + {i. Cardan rationalized fractions with cube roots in them' The
"
extent to which irrationals were used is exemplified by Vieta's expression
for 2.1 By considering regular polygons of 4, B, 16, ' ' ' sides inscribed in a
circle of unit radius, Vieta found that the value ofz is given by
900cos 900cos 900 ' ' '
Z
t - cos
T- 7- -6-
:;;1-!;^lilr.
Though calculations with irrationals were carried on freely, the prob-
lem of whether irrationals were really numbers still troubled people. In his
major work, ttre Arithmetica Integra (1544), which deals with arithmetic, the
irrationals in the tenth book of Euclid, and algebra, Stifel considers o(Press-
ing irrationals in the decimal notation. On the one hand, he arguel:
Since, in provinggeometrical 6gures, when rational numbers fail us
irrational numbers take their place and prove exactly those things which
rational numbers could not Prove . . . we are moved and compclled to
assert that they truly are numbers, compelled that is, by the reults which
follow from their use-results which we perceive to be real, certain, and
constant. On the other hand, other considerations compel us to deny that
irrational numbers are numbers at all. To wit, when we seek to subject
them to numeration [decimal representation] " ' we find that they flee
away perpetually, so that not one of them can be apprehended precisely
in itself. . .. Now that cannot be called a true number which is of such a
nature that it lacks precision.... Therefore, just as an infinite number
is not a number, so an irrational number is not a true number, but lies
hidden in a kind of cloud of infinity.
He then argues that real numbers are either whole numbers or frac-
tions; obviously-irrationals are neither, and so are not real numbers' A
l. The symbol zr was first used by William Jones ( 1706)
'
252 ARTTHMETTC AND ALGEBRA r5OO-r7oO
century later, Pascal and Barrow said that a number such as \/5 can be
understood only as a geometric magnitude; irrational numbers are mere
symbols that have no existence independent of continuous geometrical mag-
nitude, and the logic of operations with irrationals must be justified by the
Eudoxian theory of magnitudes. This was also the view of Newton in his
Arithmetiea Unfuersalis (published in 1707 but based on lectures of thirty
years earlier).
Others made positive assertions that the irrational numbers were inde-
pendent entities. Stevin recognized irrationals as numbers and approxi-
mated them more and more closely by rationals; John Wallis in Algebra
(1685), also accepted irrationals as numbers in the full sense. He regarded
the frfth book of Euclid's Elements as essentially arithmetical in nature. Des-
cartes, too, in Rules for the Direction of the Mind (c. 1628), admitted irrationals
as abstract numbers that can represent continuous magnitudes.
As for negative numbers, though they had become known in Europe
through the Arab texts, most mathematicians of the sixteenth and seven-
teenth centuries did not accept them as numbers, or if they did, would not
accept them as roots of equations. In the fifteenth century Nicolas Chuquet
(1445?-1500?) and, in the sixteenth, Stifel (1553) both spoke of negative
numbers as absurd numbers. Cardan gave negative numbers as roots of
equations but considered them impossible solutions, mere symbols; he
called them fictitious, whereas he called positive roots real. Vieta discarded
negative numbers entirely. Descartes accepted them, in part. He called
negative roots of equations false, on the ground that they claim to represent
numbers less than nothing. However, he had shown (see sec. 5) that, given
an equation, one can obtain another whose roots are larger than the original
one by any given quantity. Thus an equation with negative roots could be
transformed into one with positive roots. Since we can turn false roots into
real roots, Descartes was willing to accept negative numbers. Pascal regarded
the subtraction of 4 from 0 as utter nonsense.
An interesting argument against negative numbers was given by
Antoine Arnauld (1612-94), a theologian and mathematician who was a
close friend of Pascal. Arnauld questioned that - l: I : l:- I because, he
said, - I is less than * 1; hence, How could a smaller be to a greater as a
greater is to a smaller ? The problem was discussed by many men. In 1712
Leibniz agreed 2 that there was a valid objection but argued that one can
calculate with such proportions because their form is correct, just as one
calculates with imaginary quantities.
One of the first algebraists to accept negative numbers was Thomas
Harriot (1560-1621), who occasionally placed a negative number by itself
on one side of an equation. But he did not accept negative roots. Raphael
2. Acta Erud., 1712, 167-69 : Math. Schifieq 5, 387-89.

STATUS OF THE NUMBER SYSIEM AND ARITIIMETTC 253
Bombelli ( l6th cent.) gave clear definitions for negative numbers' Stevin
used positive and negative coefficients in equations and also accepted nega-
tive roots. ln his L'Inoention nowelle en l'alg]bre (1629), Albert Girard (1595-
1632) placed negative numbers on a Par with positive numbers and gave
both roots of a quadratic equation, even when both were negative' Both
Girard and Harriot used the minus sign for the operation of subtraction and
for negative numbers.
On the whole not many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century mathema-
ticians felt at ease with or accepted negative numbers as such, let alone
recognizing them as true roots of equations. There were some curious beliefs
about them. Though Wallis was advanced for his times and accepted nega'
tive numbers, he thought they were larger than infinity but not less than
zero. Irr his Arithmetica bfninrum (1655), he argued that since the ntio al0,
when a is positive, is infinite, then, when the denominator is changed to a
negative nu-ber, as h alb with D negative, the ratio must be greater than
infinity.
Without having fully overcome their difficulties with irrational and
negative numbers the Europeans added to their problems by blundering
into what we now call complex numbers. They obtained these new numbers
by extending the arithmetic operation of square root to whatever numbers
appeared in solving quadratic equations by the usual method of completing
the square. Thus, Cardan, in Chapter 37 of Ars Magna (1545), sets up and
solves the problem of dividing 10 into two parts whose Product is 40'{he
equationisx(I0 - r) : 40. He obtains the roots 5 + y'-15-a"d5 - Vll5-
urrd th.r, says, " Putting aside the mental tortures involved," multiply
5 + t/=tS and 5 - {=lS; the product is 25 - (-15) or 40. He then
states, "So progresses arithmetic subtlety the end of which, as is said, is as
refined as it ls useless." As we shall soon see, Cardan became further involved
with complex numbers in his solution of cubic equations (sec' 4)' Bombelli
too considered complex numbers in the solution of cubic equations and
formulated in practically modern form the four operations with complex
numbers; but he still regarded them as useless and " sophistic'" Albert
Girard did recognize complex numbers as at least formal solutions of
equations. ln L'Inoention nouaelle en I'algibre he says, "One could say: Of what
,rr" u." these impossible solutions [complex roots] ? I answer: For three
things-for the certitude of the general rules, for their utility, and because
there are no other solutions." However, Girard's advanced views were not
influential.
Descartes also rejected complex roots and coined the term "imaginary'"
in La ,.Neither the true nor the false [negative] roots are
He says Giomltrie,
always real; sometimes they are imaginary." He argued that' whereas
,r.guiirr. roots can at least be made "real" by transforming the equation in
which they occur into another equation whose roots are positive, this cannot
254 ARTTHMETTC AND ALCEBRA r5OC-r7OO
be done for complex roots. These, therefore, are not real but imaginary;
they are not numbers. Descartes did make a clearer distinction than his
predecessors between real and imaginary roots of equations,
Even Newton did not regard complex roots as significant, most likely
because in his day they lacked physical meaning. In fact he says, in Uninrsal
Arithmetic,s " But it is just that the Roots of Equations should be often
impossible [complex], lest they should exhibit the cases of Problems that are
impossible as if they were possible." That is, problems that do not have a
physically or geometrically real solution should have complex roots.
The lack of clarity about complex numbers is illustrated by the oft-
quoted statement by Leibniz, "The Divine Spirit found a sublime outlet in
that wonder of analysis, that portent of the ideal world, that amphibian
between being and not-being, which we call the imaginary root of negative
unity." I Though Leibniz worked formally with complex numbers, he had
no understanding of their nature.
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the operational pro-
cedures with real numbers were improved and extended. In Belgium (then
part of the Netherlands), we find Stevin advocating in La Disme (Decimal
Arithmetic, l5B5) the use of decimals, as opposed to the sexagesimal system,
for writing and operating with fractions. Others-ChristoffRudolff (c. 1500-
c. I 545) , Vieta, and the Arab al-Kashi (d . c. I 436) used them previously.
Stevin advocated a decimal system of weights and -hadmeasures he was con-
I
cerned to save the time and labor of bookkeepers (he himself had started his
career as a clerk). He writes 5.912 as 5 @ 9 O I @ 2 @, or as 5, 9' l'2'.
Vieta improved and extended the methods of performing square and cube
roots.
The use of continued fractions in arithmetic is another development of
the period. We may recall that the Hindus-Aryabhata in particular-had
used continued fractions to solve linear indeterminate equations. Bombelli,
in his Algcbra (1572), was the first to use them in approximating square roots.
To approximate y'2, he writes
(r) l2: r
t
+-.
s
From this one finds
(2) y:I+\/2.
By adding I to both sides of (l) and using (2), it follows that
(3) u:2+!.
-!
3. Second ed., 1728, p. 193.
4. Aeta 0rud., 1702 : Math. Schifun, 5,350-$1.
STATUS OF THE NUMBER SYSTEM AND ARITHMEfiC 255
Hence, again by (l) and (3),
t/2:t+ l,'
2+!v
And' since Y is given rv al;:
l + --f---.
Z+-\
z+!v
By repeated substitution of the value ofjt, Bombelli obtained
|
^/o
va:-,-r------------l-
- q -r- -------:-
qt I
I
2 +;+ ....
The right-hand side is also written as
{2: t.*++
This continued fraction is simple because the numerators are all I ; it is
periodic because the denominators rePeat. Bombelli gave other examples of
how to obtain continued fractions' He did not, however, consider the ques-
tion of whether the expansion converged to the number it was supposed to
represent.
The English mathematician John Wallis, in his Aithrwtita hfinitarum
(1655), represented 1as the infinite product In this book
i+X*++:.
he also stated that Lord William Brouncker (1620-84), the first prcsident of
the Royal Society, had transformed this product into the continued fraction
!,:r*+*##
Brouncker made no further use of this form' Wallis, however, took up the
work. In his Opera Mathematica, I (1695), wherein he introduced the term
" continued fraction," he gave the general rule for calculating the convergents
of a continued fraction. That is, if p,lqo is the zth convergent of the con-
tinued fraction
b, b, b" . . ., then ?--t : o"?"-,

!I !"P"-,
ar+ az+ 4s+ 9n dnQa-1 DnQn-2
256 ARTTHMETTC AND ALGEBRA r5OO-r 7OO
Figure 13.l C' D' E.
No definitive result on the convergence of pnlqo to the number that the con-
tinued fraction represents was obtained at this time.
The biggest improvement in arithmetic during the sixteenth and seven-
teenth centuries was the invention of logarithms. The basic idea was noted
by Stifel. ln Arithmetica Integra he observed that the terms of the geometric
progression
lrrrr2rr3r...
correspond to the terms in the arithmetic progression formed by the
exponents
o, 1r2,3,....
I\{ultiplication of two terms in the geometric progression yields a term whose
exponent is the sum ofthe corresponding terms in the arithmetic progression.
Division of two terms in the geometric progression yields a term whose
exponent is the diflerence of the corresponding terms in the arithmetic
progression. This observation had also been made by Chuquet in Le Triparty
(1484). Stifel extended this connection between the two
cn la sciente dts nombres
progressions to negative and fractional exponents. Thus the division of 12
by r3 yields r-1, which corresponds to the term - I in the extended arith-
metic progression. Stifel, however, did not make use of this connection
between the two progressions to introduce logarithms.
John Napier (1550-1617), the Scotsman who did develop logarithms
about 1594, was guided by this correspondence between the terms of a
geometric progression and those ofthe corresponding arithmetic progression.
Napier was interested in facilitating calculations in spherical trigonometry
that were being made on behalf of astronomical problems. In fact, he sent
his preliminary results to Tycho Brahe for approval.
Napier explained his ideas in Mirfui Logarithmorum Canonis Descriptio
(1614) and in the posthumously published Mirifui Logarithmarum Canonis
Constrwtio (1619). Since he was concerned with spherical trigonometry, he
dealt with the logarithms of sines. Following Regiomontanus, who used
half chords and a circle whose radius contained l0? units, Napier started
with 10? as the largest number to be considered. He let the sine values from
107 to 0 be represented on the line AZ (Fig. l3.l) and supposed that ..4
moves toward Z with a velocity proportional to its distance from Z.
Strictly speaking, the velocity of the moving point varies continually
with the distance from A and the proper expression of it calls for the
STATUS OF THE NUMBER SYSTEM AND ARITHMETIC 257
calculus. However, if we consider any small interval of time t and let the
lengths lB, BC, CD,. . . be traversed in this interval, and if we assume that
the velocity during the interval I is constant and the one Possessed by the
moving point at the beginning of the interval, then the lengths AZ, BZ,CZ, . . .
are in geometric progression. For, consider DZ, and let ,t be the propor-
tionality constant relating the velocity and the distance of the moving point
from Z. Now
DZ:CZ-CD.
Moreover, the velocity of the moving point at C is k(CZ). Then the distance
CD : k(CZ)t. Hence
DZ : CZ - k(Cz)t : Cz(t - kt).
Thus any length in the sequence AZ, BZ, CZ, .. . is I - ftl times the pre-
ceding length.
Next Napier supposed that another point starting at the same time as ''4
moves at a constant velocity on the line A'L (Fig. l3.l), which extends in-
definitely to the right, so that this point reaches B', C', D',. . . as the first
point reaches 8,C,D,..., respectively. The distanbes A'B', A'C', A'D',..'
are obviously in arithmetic progression. These distances A'B', A'C', A'D', . ' '
were taken by Napier to be the logarithms of BZ,CZ, DZ,. . ., respectively'
The logarithm of AZ or 107 was taken to be 0. Thus the logarithms increase
in arithmetic progression while the numbers (sine values) decrease in geo-
metric progression. The quantity here denoted by I - fr is f - in
S
Napier's original work. Ilowever, he changed this ratio as he proceeded in
his calculations of logarithms.
Note that the smaller we take t the less the decrease in the sine values
frorn AZ to BZ to CZ, etc. Hence the numbers of the logarithm table are
closer together.
Napier took the distances,4' B', A' C',. . . to be l, 2, 3, .. ., though there
was no need to do that. They could have been ll2, L, I 112,2, . .. and the
scheme would have worked just as well. Moreover, the original numbers
were meaningful just as quantities, independent of the fact that they were
sine values I so Napier's scheme really gave the logarithms of numbers'
Napier himself applied logarithms to computations of spherical trigonometry'
The word "logarithm," coined by Napier, means "number of the
ratio," "Ratio" refers to the common ratio of the sequence of numbers
AZ, BZ, CZ, . . . .He also referred to logarithms as " artificial numbers'"
Henry Briggs (1561-1631), a prolessor of mathematics and astronomy,
suggested to Napier in 1615 that l0 be used as a base and that the logarithm
ofa number be the exponent in the power of 10 equal to that number' Here,
unlike Napier's scheme, a base is chosen first. Briggs calculated his logarithms
258 ARrrHMErrc AND ALGEBRA r5oo-r 7oo
by taking successive square roots of 10, that i., y'T6, l-rt-tO,. . ., until he
reached, after 54 such root extractions, a number slightly greater than l.
That is, he obtained a number A : l}totD64l. Then he took logro z4 to be
(l/2)5a. By using the fact that the logarithm ofa product of two numbers is
the sum of their logarithms, he built up a table of logarithms for numbers
that were closely spaced. The tables of common logarithms in current use
are derived from those of Briggs.
Joost Brlrgi (1552-1632), a Swiss watch and instrument maker and an
assistant to Kepler in Prague, was also interested in facilitating astronomical
calculations; he invented logarithms independently of Napier about 1600
but did not publish his work, Progress Tabuhn, until 1620. Brirgi too was
stimulated by Stifel's remarks that multiplication and division of terms in a
geometric progression can be performed by adding and subtracting the
exponents. His arithmetical work was similar to Napier's.
Variations of Napier's idea were gradually introduced' Also, many dif-
ferent tables of logarithms were calculated by algebraic means. The calcu-
lation of logarithms by the use of infinite series was made later by James
Gregory, Lord Brouncker, Nicholas Mercator (born Kaufman, 1620-87),
Wallis, and Edmond Halley (see Chap. 20, sec. 2).
Though the definition of logarithms as exponents of the powers that
represent the numbers in a fixed base, as in Briggs's scheme' became the
common approach, they were not defined as cxPonents in the early seven-
teenth century because fractional and irrational exponents were not in use.
By the end of the century a number of men recognized that logarithms could
be so defined, but the first systematic exposition of this approach was not
made until 1742, wlr..en William Jones (1675-17 49) gave such a Presentation
in the introduction to William Gardiner's Tablc of lagaritirzs. Euler had
already defined logarithms as exponents and in 1728, in an unpublished
manuscript (Opera Posthuma, II, 800-804), introduced e for the base of the
natural logarithms.
The nexi development in arithmetic (whose further realization has
proved momentous in recent times) was the invention of mechanical devices
and machines to speed up the execution of arithmetic Processes. The slide
rule comes from the work of Edmund Gunter (158l-1626), who utilized
Napier's logaritlms. William Oughtred (1574-1660) introduced circular
slide rules.
In 1642 Pascal invented a computing machine that handled addition by
carrying from units to tens, tens to hundreds, etc., automatically. Leibniz
saw it in Paris and then invented a machine which could perform multipli
cation. He showed the Royal Society of London his idea in 1677; a descrip-
tion was published by the Berlin Academy in 1710. In the late seventeenth
century Samuel Morland (1625-95), independently invented one machine
for addition and subtraction and another for multiplication.
SYMBOLISM 259
We shall not pursue the history of calculating machines because until

at Ieast 19,t0, they were simply mechanical devices that performed only
arithmetic and had no influence on the course of mathematics. We shall,
however, note that the most significant step between those already de-
scribed and modern electronic computers was made by Charles Babbage
(t 792-l B7l ), who introduced a machine intended for astronomical and
navigational computations. His "analytic engine" was designed to perform
a whole series of arithmetic operations on the basis of instructions fed into
the machine at the start. It would then work automatically under steam
power. With support from the British government, he built demonstration
models. Unfortunately the machine made excessive demands on the
engineering competence of his time.
3. Symbolism
The advance in algebra that proved far more significant for its development
and for analysis than the technical progress of the sixteenth century was the
introduction of better symbolism. Indeed, this step made possible a science
ofalgebra. Prior to the sixteenth century, the only man who had consciously
introduced symbolism to make algebraic thinking and writing more comPact
and more effective was Diophantus. All other changes in notation were
essentially abbreviations of normal words, rather casually introduced. In the
Renaissance the common style was still rhetorical, that is, the use of special
words, abbreviations, and of course number symbols'
The pressure in the sixteenth century to introduce symbolism un-
doubtedly came from the rapidly expanding scientific demands on mathe-
maticians, just as the improvements in methods of calculation were a response
to the increasing uses of that art. However, improvement was intermittent.
Many changes were made by accident; and it is clear that the men of the
sixteenth century certainly did not have an appreciation ofwhat symbolism
could do for algebra. Even after a decided advance in symbolism was made,
it was not taken up at once by mathematicians.
Perhaps the first abbreviations, used from the flfteenth century on, were
p for plus and rn for minus. However, in the Renaissance and especially
during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, special symbols were intro-
duced. The symbols * and - were introduced by Germans of the fifteenth
century to denote excess and defective weights of chests and were taken over
by mathematicians; they appear in manuscripts after 1481. The symbol x
for "times" is due to Oughtred; but Leibniz rightly objected to it because
it can be confused with the letter x.
The sign : was introduced in 1557 by Robert Recorde (1510-58) of
Cambridge, who wrote the first English treatise on algebra, Tlu Wlutstoru
oJ Wilte (1557). He said he knew no two things more nearly alike than
260 ARrIHMETTC AND ALGEBRA r5oo-I7oo
parallel lines and so two such lines should denote equality' Vieta, who at
irrst wrote out " aequalis," later used - for equality' Descartes used oc' The
symbols > and < are due to Thomas Harriot. Parentheses appear in 1544'
square brackets and braceq introduced by vieta, date from about 1593.
Th" ,qru." root symbol, {- , *u" used by Descartes; but for cube root he
wtote {71-.
As examples of some of the writing, we might note the following' Using
B for square root, p for plus, and m for minus, Cardan wrote
(5 + y'=15).(5 - /=15) : 25 - (-15) : 40
,ul
5p: &m:15
5m: &m:15
25m:m:15 qd. est 40.
Hc also wrote
\/i +Tr4 as &.v. 7.p:&r4.
The V indicated that all that followed was under the radical sign'
The use of symbols for the unknown and powers of the unknown had a
rather surprisingiy slow rise, in view of the simplicity and yet extraordinary
value of the practice. (Of course Diophantus had used such symbols') Early
sixteenth-ceniury authors, like Pacioli, referred to the unknown as radix
(Latin for "roor") or res (Latin for " thing"), cosa (" thing" in Italian), and
rass ("thing" in German), for which reason algebra became known as the
" cossic " ait. In his Ars Magna Cardan referred to the unknown as rem
ignotam. He wrote x2 : 4x * 32 as qtlratu aeqtur 4 rebus p:32'5 The constant
tlerm, 32, was called the numero. The terms and notation varied a great deal;
many symbols were derived from abbreviations' For example, one symbol
for tire unknown was the letter R, an abbreviation of res' The second power'
represented by Z (ftom zensus), was called the quadratwn ot censo ' C, taken
from cubus, denoted .r3.
Gradually exponents were introduced to denote the powers ofr' Expo-
nents attached to numbers, we may recall, were used by Oresme in the
fourteenth century. h 1484 Chuquet in Triparty wrote 123, 105, and 1208
for 12x3, 1015, ani 120*8. He also wrote I2o for l2ro and 71'for 7x-1' Thus
8", 7,^ equals 562 stood for 8x3'7x-L :5612.
Irnhii AtgebraBombelli used the word tanto, instead of cora' For *, 12, and
*t,he wrote! J" and$. Thus 1 + 3x + 6tc2 + x3 is 1 p:*P'&p' lc' l\
l5B5 Stevin r.irol for this expression l@ + 30 + 62 +@. Stevin also used
fractional exponents,(
/'r\ - /T\"
square root,( )for cube root, and so on'
; )for i
5. Rcm and' rebus ate forms in the declension of res'
SYMBOLISM 26I
Claude Bachet de Mdziriac ( 1581-1638) preferred to write .{3 + l3x2 + 5x + 2

as lC * 13Q + 5N + 2. Vieta used the same notation for equations with
numerical coefficients.
Descartes made rather systematic use of positive integral exponents. He
expressed
t +3r+ 6x2 + xB as I +3r+ 6xx + xs.
Occasionally he and others used x2 also. For higher powers he used ra,
.r5,. . . but not ,tr. Newton used positive, negative, integral' and fractional
exponents, as in *5/3 and x-3. When, in l80l, Gauss adopted *2 for .r*, the
former became standard.
The most significant change in the character of algebra was introduced
in connection with symbolism by Frangois Vieta. Trained as a lawyer, he
served in that capacity for the parliament in Brittany; he was later privy
councillor to Henry of Navarre. When he was out of office from l5B4 to 1589,
as a result of political opposition, he devoted himself entirely to mathe-
matics. Generally, he pursued mathematics as a hobby and printed and
circulated his work at his own expense-a guarantee, as one writer put it,
of oblivion.
Vieta was a humanist in spirit and intention; he wished to be the pre-
server, rediscoverer, and continuator of ancient mathematics. Innovation
was for him renovation. He describes his In A*m Analytitam Isagogco as the
"work of the restored mathematical analysis." For this book he drew on
the seventh book of Pappus' Matlumatical Collection and on Diophantus'
Arithmetica. He believed that the ancients had used a general algebraic type
of calculation, which he reintroduced in his algebra, thus merely reactivating
an art known and approved of in antiquity.
During the hiatus in his political career Vieta studied the works of
Cardan, Tartaglia, Bombelli, Stevin, and Diophantus. From them and
particularly from Diophantus he got the idea of using letters. Though a
number of men, including Euclid and Aristotle, had used letters in place of
specific numbers, these uses were infrequent, sporadic, and incidental. Vieta
was the first to use letters purPosefully and systematically, not just to repre-
sent an unknown or Powers of the unknown but as general coefficients'
Usually he used consonants for the known quantities and vowels for the
unknown quantities. He called his symbolic algebra logistica speciosa, as
opposed to logistica numerosa. Vieta was fully aware that when he studied the
general quadratic equation ax2 + bx + , : 0 (in our notation), he was
.trdying an entire class of expressions. In making the distinction between
logistica numerosa and, logistiea speciosa in his Isagoge, Vieta drew the line be-
tween arithmetic and algebra. Algebra, the logistiea speciosa, he said, was a
method of operating on species or forms of things. Arithmetic, the numnosa,
6. Introduction to the Analytic Art, l59l : Opera, l-12.
262 ARTTHMETTo AND ALGEBRA r5oo-r7oo
dealt with numbers. Thus in this one step, algebra became a study of general
types of forms and equations, since what is done for the general case covers
an infinity of special cases. Vieta used literal coefficients for positive numbers
only.
Vieta sought to establish the algebraic identities concealed in geometrical
form in the old Greek works, but to his mind clearly recognizable in Dio-
phantus. Indeed, as we noted in Chapter 6, the latter had made many
transformations of algebraic expressions by using identities that he did not
cite explicitly. Tn his Zetetborum Libri QuinquzT Vieta sought to recapture these
identities. He completed the square of a general quadratic expression and
expressed general identities such as
as + Sazb + 3ab2 + gs : (a ! b)s,
though he wrote
a cubus * b in a quadr. 3 * a in b quad. 3 * b cubo aequalia

iT-b-c,rbo.
It would seem that Vieta's successors would immediately have been
struck by the idea of general coefficients. But as far as one can judge, the
introduction of letters for classes of numbers was accepted as a minor move
in the development of symbolism. The idea of literal coefficients slipped
almost casually into mathematics. However Vieta's ideas on symbolism were
appreciated and made more flexible by Harriot, Girard, and Oughtred.
Improvements in Vieta's use of Ietters are due to Descartes. He used
first letters of the alphabet for known quantities and last letters for un-
knowns, which is the modern practice. However, like Vieta, Descartes used
Ietters for positive numbers only, though he did not hesitate to subtract
terms with literal coefficients. Not until John Hudde (1633-1704) did so in
1657 was a letter used for positive and negative numbers. Newton did so
freely.
Leibniz must be mentioned in the history of symbolism, though he
postdates the significant steps in algebra. He made prolonged studies of
various notations, experimented with symbols, asked the opinions of his
contemporaries, and then chose the best. We shall encounter some of his
symbolism in our survey ofthe calculus. He certainly appreciated the great
saving of thought that good symbols make possible.
Thus, by the end of the seventeenth century, the deliberate use of
symbolism-as opposed to incidental and accidental use-and the aware-
ness of the power and generality it confers entered mathematics. Unfortun-
ately, far too many symbols introduced in a hit-or-miss and thoughtless
7. Five Books of Analysis, 1593 = Olua,4l-al.

soLUnoN oF THrRD AND FOURTH DEGREE EqUATTONS 263
manner by men who did not aPpreciate the importance of this device became
standard.In noting this, the historian Florian Cajori was impelled to say
that " our symbols today are a mosaic of individual signs of rejected
systems."
4. The Solution of Third and Fourth Degree Equations

The solution of quadratic equations by the method of completing the square
had been known since Babylonian times' and about the only progress in that
subject until 1500 was made by the Hindus, who treated quadratics such as
x, + 3x+ 2 : 0 ar.id x2 - 3x - 2 : 0 as one type, whereas their prede-
cessors and even most of their Renaissance successors preferred to treat the
latter equation in the form x2 : 3x * 2. Cardan, as we noted, did solve one
quadratic having complex roots but dismissed the solutions as useless. The
cubic equation, excePt for isolated cases, had thus flar defied the mathema-
ticians; as late as 1494 Pacioli had asserted that the solution of general cubic
equations was impossible.
Scipione dal Ferro (1465-1526), a professor of mathematics at Bologna,
solved cubics of the type xs + mx: z about 1500. He did not publish his
method because in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries discoveries were
often kept secret and rivals were challenged to solve the same problem.
However, about 1510, he did confide his method to Antonio Maria Fior
(first half of l6th cent.) and to his son-in-law and successor Annibale della
Nave (1500?-58).
Nothing more happened until Niccold Fontana ofBrescia (1499 ?-1557)
entered the scene. As a boy he had received a saber cut in the face from a
French soldier, which caused him to stammer; as a consequence he was
called Tartaglia, " Stammerer." Brought up in poverty, he taught himself
Latin, Greek, and mathematics. He earned his living by teaching science in
various Italian cities. In 1535 Fior challenged Tartaglia to solve thirty cubic
equations. Tartaglia, who said he had already solved cubics of the form
x" + mx' : n, m and z positive, solved all thirty, including the tyPe
x3+mx:n.
Pressed by Cardan to reveal his method, Tartaglia gave it to him in an
obscure verse form after a pledge from Cardan to keep it secret. This was in
1539. In 1542 Cardan and his pupil Lodovico Ferrari (1522-65), on the
occasion of a visit by della Nave, determined that dal Ferro's method was
the same as Tartaglia's. Despite his pledge, Cardan published his venion of
the method in his lrs Magna. In Chapter I I he says that, " Scipio Ferro of
Bologna well-nigh thirty years ago discovered this rule and handed it on to
Antonio Maria Fior of Venice whose contest with Niccold Tartaglia of
Brescia gave Niccold occasion to discover it. He gave it to me in response to
my entreaties, though withholding the demonstration. Armed with this
264 ARITHMETTo AND ALGEERA I5oo-r7oo
assistance, I sought out its demonstration in [various] forms. This was very
difficult. My version of it follows."
Tartaglia protested the breach ol promise, and' in Quesiti ed inoenzioni
diterse (1546) presented his own case. However' neither in this book nor in his
General trattato di numeri e misure (1556), which is a good presentation of the
arithmetical and geometrical knowledge of the times, did he give more on the
cubic equation itself. The dispute as to who first solved the cubic led to an
open conflict between Tartaglia and Ferrari that exhausted itself in wild
quarreling in which Cardan took no part. Tartaglia himself was not above
reproach; he published a translation of some of Archimedes' work which he
actually took over from William of Moerbecke (d. c. 12Bl), and he claimed
to have discovered the law of motion of an object on an inclined plane-
which really came from Jordanus Nemorarius.
The method Cardan published he first illustrates with the equation
*3 + 6* : 20. However, to see the generality of the method we shall
consider
(4) xa+mx:n
with z and z positive. Cardan introduces two quantities I and u and lets
(s) t-il:n
and
(6) (r) : (?)

He then asserts that
(7) *: tft - {i.

By elimination, using (5) and (6), and by solving the resulting quadratic
equation, he obtains
(B) t: +2' u:
Here we have taken the positive radical as Cardan does. Having obtained ,
and z Cardan takes the positive cube root of each and by (7) obtains one
value of r. Presumably this is the same root that Tartaglia got.
The above is Cardan's method. However, he had to prove that (7) gives
a correct value for x. His proof is geometrical; for Cardan, I and z were
volumes of cubes whose sides *.r" {t and {i, and the product Xi ' {i *ut
a rectangle formed by the two sides whose area was z/3. Also, where we
said t - u : nt Cardan says the differenqe in the volumes is a. Then he says
that the solution x is the difference in the edges of the two cubes, i.e. x :
lft f/i. To prove that this value of * is correct, he states and Proves a
-
soLUTroN oF THrRD AND FOURTH DEGREE EqUATIONS 265
Figure 13.2
d-$ la
geometrical lemma to the effect that, if from a line segment AC (Fig. 13.2) a
segment BC is cut off, then the cube on lB will equal the cube on ,4C minus
the cube on BC minus three times the right parallelepiped whose edges are
AC, AB, and, BC. This geometrical lemma is of course no more than that
(e) ({t- t4":t-u-3({t- {-,4{tt".
Granted this lemma (which, by using the binomial theorem, we see must be
correct, but which Cardan establishes by citing theorems of Euclid), Cardan
has buttoobservethatifheletsr : 1/1 - {-u,t - u: n,and{r{n:i,
then the lemma says that xs : n - mtc. Hence if he chooses I and z to satisfr
the conditions (5) and (6), the value of x given by (7) in terms of , and z will
satisfy the cubic. He then gives ? purety verbal arithmetical rule for the
method, which tells us to form \ft - Yi where I arrd, u are given by (B) in
terms of z and a.
Cardan also solves (as did Tartaglia) particular equations of the types
tc':m* +n, xa+mxln:0, x3 an:mt.
He has to treat each of these cases separately and all three separately from
equation (4) because, first, up to this time the Europeans wrote equations so
that only terms with positive numbers appeared in them, and second,
because he had to give a separate geometrical justification for the rule in
each case.
Cardan also shows how to solve equations such as *3 * 6x2 : 100' He
knew how to eliminate the x2 term; that is, since the coefficient was 6, he
replaced x by g - 2 and obtained !3 : l2y * 84. He also recognized that
one can treat an equation such as *a 4 6xa: 100 as a cubic by letting
yz : y. Throttghout the book he gives positive and negative roots, desPite
the fact that he calls negative numbers fictitious. However he ignored com'
plex roots. In fact, in Chapter 37 he calls problems leading to neither true
nor lalse (positive or negative) roots false problems. The book is detailed-
even boring, to a modern reader-because Cardan treats separately the
many cases not only ofthe cubic equation but also ofthe auxiliary quadratic
equations he must solve to find t and z. In each case, he writes the equation
so that the coefficients of the terms are positive.
There is a difficulty with Cardan's solution of the cubic, which he
observed but did not resolve. When the roots of the cubic are all real and
distinct, it can be shown that tr and u will be complex because the radicand
in (B) is negative; yet we need {t and, t7z- to obtain x. This means that real
266 ARITHMETIC AND ALGEBRA I5OO-I7OO
numbers can be expressed in terms of the cube roots of comPlex numbers.

However, these three real roots cannot be obtained by algebraic means, that
is, by radicals. This case was called irreducible by Tartaglia. One would
think that the fact that real numbers can be expressed as combinations of
complex numbers would have caused Cardan to take complex numbers
seriously, but it did not.
Vieta, in De Aequationum Rzcognitione et Emmdatiotu, written in l59l and
published in 1615,8 was able to solve the irreducible case of cubics by using
a trigonometric identity, and so avoided the use of Cardan's formula. This
method is also used today. He started with the identity
(10) cos3r4
= 4coss A - 3 cos.,{,
By letting z : cos z4 the identity becomes
(l l) ., -1. - l*' 3a:0.

Suppose the given cubic is (Vieta worked with xs - 3a2* : azb and.
a > bl2)
(12) v3+Pv+q:0.
By introducing y : nz, where n is at our disposal, we can make the coeffi-
cients of (12) the same as those of (l l). Substituting y : nz in (12) gives
(13)
""+42+1:o.
n' n"
Now we require of n that plns : -3/4 so that
(14) n: {=qE.
With this value of z chosen, we select a value ..{ so that
(15)
f;: -f,.osze
or so that
(16) cos3l : -y^:

no -L
t/ _psl2l
One can show that if the three roots are real then I is negative so that 2 is
real, Moreover, one can show that lcos 3ll < l. Hence one can find 3l
from a table,
Whatever the value of l, cos I satisfies (l l) because (l l) is an identity.
Now .,4 was selected so that (13) is a particular case of (11). For this value of
A, cos A satisfies (13). However, the value of z4 is determined by (16), and
8. On thc Review and Correction of Equations, Olna,82-162.
SoLUTION OF THrRD AND FOURTH DEOREE EqUATTONS 267
this fixes 31. But for any given z{ that satisfies (16), so do A * 120" and
A + 240'. Since z : cos l, there are, then, three values satis$ing (13):
cos.r{., cos (,4 + 120'), and cos (z{ + 240').

The three values satisfying (12) are rr times these values of z, where z is
given by (14). Vieta obtained just one root.
Of course the cubic equation has three roots. It was Leonhard Euler
who, in 1732, gave the first complete discussion of Cardan's solution of the
cubic, in which he emphasized that there are always three roots and pointed
out how these are obtained.e lf ot and az ate the complex roots of .C - I :0,
that is, the roots ofr2 + , + I : 0, then the three cube roots of, and z in
(8) are
{t, -{t, -2{t and {u,.V'u, -'{i.

We must now choose a member of the first set and a member of the second
so that the product is the real number m/3. (See equation (6) in Cardan's
solution.) Since r.r and, a2 are roots of unity, tt'tt2: roo: I; hence the
proper choices for *, in view of (7), are
(17) q : {1 - il-u, xz: a{t - -'{-u, xs : <,ffft - .{i.

Successin solving the cubic equation was followed almost immediately
by success in solving the quartic. The method is due to Lodovico Ferrari and
was published in Cardan's Ars Magna; we describe it in modern notation and
with literal coefficients to show the generality. The equation is
(lB) xa+bxg+cxa+dx+c:0.
By transposition we get
(19) xa +bxs: -cxz-b-c.
Now complete the square on the left side by adding (} 14' This gives
(20) (* *i,,l' : (+b, - )*' - dx - e.
Now add (* * it)u + f,f to each side. Thus
(2r) Q, *io-)' * Q'*l,,), *lr'

: $* - c + t)x'z * Gw - a)x +Ir' -,.
9. Comm. Acad. Sci. Pctrop.,6, 1732t33,217-31, pub. t738 = Ol,cta, (l)' 6' l-19.
268 ARTTHMETTC AND ALoEBRA r5oo-I7oo
By making the discriminant of the quadratic expression in r on the right side

zeto, we can make this side a perfect square ofa first degree expression in r.
Ilence we set
(22) (i* - o)' - r(lbz - c r,)(i,u -, : o

This is a cubi.c eqluation in y. Choose any root of this cubic and substitute it
for y in
(21). Using the fact that the left side is also a perfect square, and
taking the square root, we get a quadratic in x equaling either of two linear
functions of x, one the negative of the other. Solving these two quadratics
gives 4 roots for x. Choosing another root from (22) would give a different
equation in (21) but the same four roots.
In presenting Ferrari's method Cardan, in Chapter 39 of Ars Magna,
solves a multitude of special cases, each with numerical coefficients. Thus he
solves equations of the type
xa:bxz +a*+n, xa:btc2 a cxs +n,

x*:cxs *nr xa:ax*n.
As in the case ofthe cubic equation, he gives a geometrical proofofthe basic
algebraic steps and then gives the rule for solution in words.
Cardan, Tartaglia, and Ferrari showed, by solving numerous instances
of cubic and quartic equations, that they had sought and obtained methods
that would work for all cases ofthe respective degrees' The interest in gener-
ality is a new feature. Their work preceded Vieta's introduction of literal
coefficients, so they could not take advantage of this device. Vieta, who had
already made possible a generality in proofby introducing literal coefficients,
now sought another kind of generality. He noted that the methods of solving
the second, third, and fourth degree equations were quite different. He
therefore sought a method that would work for equations of each degree.
His first idea was to get rid of the term next to the highest in degree by a
substitution. Tartaglia had done this for the cubic but did not try it for all
equations.
In the Isagoge Vieta does the following. To solve the quadratic equation
x2*2bx:c
he lets
x * b:!.
Then
!2:12+2bx* b2.
In view of the original equation,

y:{-c+b2.
SOLUTION OF THIRD AND FOURTII DEGREE EqUATIONS e69
Then
x:!-b:\/c+F-b.
In the case of the third degree equation
xs+bxz*cx*d:0,
Vieta starts by letting r : g- bl\. This substitution gives the reduced cubic
(23) s3+Pg+q:0.
Next he introduces a further transformation, indeed the one we learn today.
He lets
(24) y:"-*"
and obtains
""-rL7""+q:0.
He then solves the quadratic in z3 and obtains
,a:-!+2 = V.R
- where /,'\8 lc\',-.
_ (t) * (i,
":
Here, as in Cardan's method, there are two values for 20. Though Victa used
only the positive cube root of 23, one can use all six (complex) roots. The use
of (24) would show that only three distinct values ofy result from tlre six
values of z.
To solve the general fourth degree equation
*tlbxs+cxz+dx*e:O,
Vieta lets x : ! - bl4 and. reduces the equation to
x4+Pxz+qt +r:0,
He then transposes the last three terms and adds 2x2g2 + ya to both sides.
This makes the left side a perfect square and, as in Ferrari's method, by
properly choosing y he makes the right side a perfect square of the form
(Ax + B)2. To choose y properly he applies the discriminant condition for
a quadratic equation and is led to a sixth degree equation in y, which for-
tunately is a cubic in y2. This step and the rest of the work is precisely the
same as in Ferrari's method.
Another general method explored by Vieta was to factor the poly-
nomial into flrst degree liactors just as we might factor x2 * 5x * 6 into
(x + 2) (x + 3). He was unsuccessful partly because he rejected all but
positive roots and partly because he did not have enough theory, such as the
270 ARITHMETIC AND ALGEBRA r soe-r 7OO
factor theorem, on which to base a general method. Thomas Harriot had

the same idea and failed for the same reasons.
The search for general algebraic methods turned next to solving equa-
tions of degree higher than four. James Gregory, who had given his own
methods of solving cubic and quartic equations, tried to use them to solve
the quintic equation. He and Ehrenfried Walter von Tschirnhausen (1651-
1708) tried to use trandormations to reduce higher-degree equations to
t$,o terms, a power of x and a constant. These attempts to solve equations
beyond the quartic failed. In later work on integration Gregory surmised
that one could not solve algebraically the general zth-degree equation for
n>4.
5. Tlu Tluory of Equations

The work on methods of solving equations produced a number of related
theorems and observations that are studied nowadays in the elementary
theory of equations. The number of roots an equation can have was con-
sider.ed. Cardan had introduced complex roots and it seemed to him for a
while that an equation might have any number of roots. But he soon recog-
nized that a third degree equation has 3 roots, a fourth degree 4, and so on.
In Ll Intcnlion nouaelh, Albert Girard inferred and stated that an zth-degree
polynomial equation has z roots if one counts the impossible roots, that is,
the complex roots, and ifone takes into account the repeated roots. But Girard
gavc no proof, Descartes, in the third book of La GComltrie, said that an equa-
tion can have as many distinct roots as the number of dimensions (degree)
of the unknown. He said "can have" because he considered negative roots
as false roots. Later, by including imaginary and negative roots for the pur-
pose of counting roots, he concluded that there are as many as the degree.
The next significant question was how to predict the number of posi-
tive, negative, and complex roots. Cardan observed that the complex roots
of an equation (with real coefficients) occur in pairs. Newton proved this in
his Arithmetica Uniaersalis. Descartes in La Giomitrie stated without proof the
rule of signs, known as Descartes's rule, which states that the maximum
number of positive roots of;[(*) : 0, where./is a polynomial, is the number
of alterations in sign of the coefficients and that the maximum number of
negative roots is the number of times two + signs or two - signs occur in
succession. As now given, the latter part of the rule states that the maximum
number of negative roots is the number of alterations in /( -x) : 0. The
rule was proved by several eighteenth-century mathematicians. The proof
usually presented today is due to Abbd Jean-Paul de Gua de Malves (1712-
85), who showed also that the absence of 2m successive terms indicates
2m * 2 or 2m complex roots, according as the two terms between which the
deficiency occurs have like or unlike signs.
THE THEORY Or EqUATTONS 27r
ln his Arithmctica [Jnbersalis Newton described but did not prove another
method for determining the maximum number of positive and negative real
roots and hence the least possible number of complex roots. This method is
more complicated to apply but gives better results than Descartes's rule of
signs. It was finally proved as a special case of a more general theorem by
Sylvester.lo Somewhat earlier Gauss showed that if the number of positive
roots falls short of the number of variations of sign, it falls short by an even
number.
Another class ofresults concerns the relationships between the roots and
coefficients ofan equation. Cardan discovered that the sum ofthe roots is the
negative of the coefficient of xo-I, that the sum of the products two at a time
is the coefficient of r'- 2, and so forth. Both Cardan and Vieta (in Da
Aequationum Rccognitione et Emendatione) used the first relationship between
roots and coefficients of low degree equations to eliminate the.ro-1 term in
polynomial equations in manners we have described earlier. Newton stated
ihe relationship between roots and coefficients in hlis Arithmctica Unioasalis;
so did James Gregory in a letter to John Collins (1625-83), the secretary of
the Royal Society. However, no proofs were given by any of these men'
Vieta and Descartes constructed equations whose roots were more or
less than the roots ofa given equation. The process is merely to replace x by
g * m. Both men also used the transformation ! : mx to obtain an equation
whose roots are z times the roots of a given equation. For Descartes the
former propess had the significance we mentioned earlier, namely, that false
(negative) roots can be made true (positive) roots, and conversely'
Descartes also proved that if a cubic equation with rational coefficients
has a rationai root, then the polynomial can be expressed as the product of
factors with rational coefficients.
Another major result is now known as the factor theorem. In the third
book of La GComCtrie Descartes asserted that /(x) is divisible by x - a, a
positive, if and only if a is a root off(x) :0, and byr * a ifa is a lblse root'
With this fact and others he had asserted, Descartes established the modern
method of finding the rational roots of a polynomial equation. After making
the highest coefficient l, he made all the coefrcients integral by multiply-
ing the roots of the given equation by the necessary factor. This is done by
using the rule he had given ofreplacing * byy/zz in the equation. The rational
roots of the original equation must now be integral liactors of the coostant
term in the new equation. If by trial one finds that a, say, is a root, then by
the factor theorem, y - a is a factor of the new polynomial in y. Descartes
points out that by eliminating this factor one reduces the degree of the equa-
tion and can then work with the reduced equation.
Newton in Arithmctica [Jniaersalis and others earlier gave t]reorems on the
upper bound for the roots of equations. One of these theorems involves
10. Proc. Lorulon Mart. Soc,, l, 1865, l-16 = Math. Papcrs,2' 498-513'
272 ARTTHMETIC AND ALGEBRA I5OO-r 7OO
the calculus and will be stated in Chapter t7 (sec. 7). Newton discovered
the relation between the roots and discriminant of an equation, namely that,
for example, ax2 + bx + , : 0 has equal, real, or nonreal roots according
as b2 - 4ac equals 0, is greater than 0 or is less than 0.
In La Giomitrie Descartes introduced the principle of undetermined co-
efficients. The principle can be illustrated thus: To factor *2
- I into two
linear factors, one supposes that
xz_t:(x+b)(x+d).
By multiplying out the right-hand side and equating coefficients of like
powers of *, one finds that
b+d:0
bd : -1.
One can now solve for D and /. Descartes stressed the usefulness of this
method.
One other method, the method of mathematical induction, entered
algebra explicitly in the late sixteenth century. Of course the method is
implicit even in Euclid's proof of the infinitude of the number of primes.
As he proves the theorem, he shows that if there are a primes, there must
be z + I primes; and since there is a first prime, the number of primes
must be infinite. The method was recognized explicitly by Maurolycus in
his Arithmetita of 1575 and was used by him to prove, for example, that
1+3 +5 +..'+ (2n - l): (na l)2. Pascal in one of his letters ac-
knowledged Maurolycus's introduction of the method and used it himsellin
bts Traiti du triangle arithmitique (1665), wherein he presents what we now call
the Pascal triangle (sec. 6).
6. The Binomial Theorem and Allied Topics

The binomial theorem for positive integral exponents, that is, the expansion
of (a * b)" for z positive integral, was known by the Arabs of the thirteenth
century. About l5,K Stifel introduced the term " binomial coefficient" and
showed how to calculate (l + a)" from (l + d),-1. The arrangement of
numbers
I
ll
l2l
1331
1464t
I 510t0 5 t
in which each number is the sum of the two immediately above it, already
TIIE BINOMIAL THEOREM AND ALLIED TOPICS .tJ
known to Tartaglia, Stifel, and Stevin, was used by Pascal (1654) to obtain
the coefficients of the binomial expansion. Thus the numbers in the fourth
row are the coefficients in the expansion of (a * 6)3. Despite the flact that
this arrangement was known to many predecessors, it has been called
Pascal's triangle.
Newton in 1665 showed that we may comPute (l + 4)'directly without
reference to (1 + a)n-'. Then he became convinced that the expansion held
for fractional and negative n (it is an infinite series in this case) and so stated,
but never proved, this generalization. He did verify that the series of ( I '1 a|rz
times itself gave I + x, but neither he nor James Gregory (who arrived at
the theorem independently) thought a proof necessary. In two letters, ol
secretary of
June 6 and October 4, 1676, to Henry Oldenburg (c. 1615-77),
the Royal Society, Newton stated the more general result, which he knew
before 1669, namely, the expansion of (P + PQ)^t". H. thought of it as a
useful method of extracting roots, because if Q is less than I (the P being
factored out), the successive terms, being powers of Q, are smaller and
smaller in value.
Independently of the work on the binomial theorem, the formulas for
the number of Permutations and the number of combinations of z things
taken r at a time appeared in the works of a number of mathematicians, for
example, Bhdskara and the Frenchman Levi ben Gerson (1321)' Pascal
observed that the formula for combinations, often denoted O, "", "t (l),
also gives the binomial coefficients. That is, for z fixed and r running from
0 to z, the formula yields the successive coefficients. James Bernoulli, in
his Ars Conjectandi (1713), extended the theory of combinations and then
proved the binomial theorem for the case of z positive integral by using the
formula for combinations.
The work on Permutations and combinations is connected with another
development, the theory of probability, which was to assume major im-
portance in the late nineteenth century but which barely warrants mention
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The problem of the probability
of throwing a particular number on a throw of two dice had been raised
even in medieval times. Another problem, how to divide the stake between
two players when the stake is to go to the player who first wins z points, but
the ptay is interrupted after the first player has madep points and the second
4 poi.r,., appears in Pacioli's Summa
and in books by Cardan, Tartaglia, and
otir"... 1'hit ptoblem acquired some imPortance when, after it was proposed
to Pascal by Antoine Gombaud, Chevalier de Mdr6 (1610-85), Pascal and
Fermat corresponded about it. The problem and their solutions are unim-
portant, but iheir work on it does mark the beginning of the theory of
probability. Both applied the theory of combinations.
The 6rst significant book on probability was Bernoulli's Ars Conjectandi.
The most important new result, still called Bernoulli's theorem, states that
274 ARTTHMETTC AND ALGEBRA r 5OO-r 7OO
ifp is the probability ofa single event happening and 4 the probability ofits
failing to happen, then the probability of the event happening at least z
times in z trials is the sum of the terms in the expansion of (p + q)" ftom p"
to the term involving pa4n-n.
7. Tlu Tluory oJ Numbers

While practical interests stimulated the improvements in calculations, sym-
bolism, and the theory of equations, interest in purely mathematical prob-
lems led to renewed activity in the theory of numbers. This subject had, of
course, been initiated by the classical Greels; and Diophantus had added
the topic of indeterminate equations. The Hindus and Arabs had, at least,
kept the subject from falling into oblivion. Though almost all the Renais-
sance algebraists we have mentioned made conjectures and observations, the
European who first made extensive and impressive contributions to the theory
of n "nbers and gave the subject enonnous impetus was Pierre de Fermat
(1601-65).
Born to a family oftradespeople, he was trained as a lawyer in the French
city of Toulouse and made his living in this profession. For a time he was a
councillor of the parliament of Toulouse. Though mathematics was but a
hobby for Fermat and he could devote only spare time to it, he contributed
first-class results to the theory of numbers and the calculus, was one of the
two creators of coordinate geometry, and, together with Pascal, as we have
seen, initiated work on probability. Like all mathematicians of his century,
he worked on problems of science and made a lasting contribution to optics:
Fermat's Principle of Least Time (Chap. 24, sec. 3). Most of Fermat's
results are known through letters he wrote to friends. He published only a
few papers, but some ofhis books and papers were published after his death..
Fermat believed that the theory of numbers had been neglected. He
complained on one occasion that hardly anyone propounded or understood
arithmetical questions and asked, " Is it due to the fact that up to now arith-
metic has been treated geometrically rather than arithmetically ? " Even
Diophantus, he observed, was somewhat tied to geometry. Arithmetic, he
beliwed, had a special domain of its own, the theory of integral numbers.
Fermat's work in the theory of numbers determined the direction of the
worl in this area until Gauss made his contributions, Fermat's point of
departure was Diophantus. Many translations of the latter's Arithmetba had
been made by Renaissance mathematicians.. In 1621 Bachet de Mdziriac
published the Greek text and a Latin translation. This was the edition that
Fermat owned; he noted most of his results in the margins of the book, though
a few were communicated in letters to friends. The copy with Fermat's
marginal notes was published in 1670 by his son.
Fermat stated many theorems on the theory of numbers but only in one
II{E THEORY OF NUMBERS 275
case did he give a proof, and this was a sketch. The best mathematicians of
the eighteenth century worked hard to prove his results, (Chap' 25, sec' 4)'
These all turned out to be correct except for one error (which we shall note
later) and one still-unproved famous " theorem," for which the indications
are all favorable. There is no doubt that he had great intuition, but it is
unlikely that he had proofs for all of his affirmations'
A document discovered in lB79 among the manuscripts of Huygens
gives a famous metltod, called the method of infinite descent, which was
introduced and used by Fermat. To understand the method let us consider
the theorem asserted by Fermat in a letter to Marin Mersenne (1588-Ie+8)
of December 25, 1640, which states that a prime of the form 4a + I can
be expressed in one and only one way as the sum of two squares' Thus
17 :-16 * I and 29:25 + 4. The method proceeds by showing that
if there is one prime of the form 4n + | that does zol possess the required
property,. then ihere will be a smaller prime of the form 4n + I not possessing
It. ih.rr, since z is arbitrary, there must be a still smaller one' By descending
through the positive integral values of z one must rcac}l, n : I and thus the
prime"4.t i t or 5. Then 5 cannot possess the required property' But,
since 5 is expressible as a sum of two squares and in only one way' so is every
prime of the form 4n * l. This sketch of his method Fermat sent to his
iriend pierre de Carcavi (d. 1684) in 1659. Fermat said that he used the
method to prove the theorem just described, but his proof was nwer found'
He also said that he proved other theorems by this method'
The method of infinite descent differs from mathematical induction'
First of all, the method does not require that one exhibit even one case in
which the proposed theorem is satisfied because one can conclude the argu-
ment by the fact that the case n : I merely leads to a contradiction of some
other known fact. Moreover, after the appropriate hypothesis is made for
one value of n, the method shows that there is a smaller, but not necessarily
the next, value of a for which the hypothesis is true. Finally the method dis-
proves certain assertions and is in fact more useful for this purpose'
Fermat also stated that no prime of the form 4z + 3 can be expressed
as a sum of two squares' In a note in his copy of Diophantus and in the letter
to Mersenne, Fermat generalized on the well-known 3, 4, 5 right-triangle
relationship by asserting the following theorems : A prime of the form
4z * I is ihe hypotenuse of one and only one right triangle with integral
arms. The tqt u"i of (4n + l) is the hypotenuse of two and only two such
right fiiangles; its cube, ofthree; its biquadrate, oi4; and so on, ad infinitum'
.du, e*u-pl", consider the case ofz : l. Then4n + I : 5 and 3, 4, 5 are
the sides ofih. one and only right triangle with 5 as hyPotenuse' Ilowever,
52 is the hypotenuse of the two, and only two, right triangles 15, 20, 25 and
7,24,25. Also 53 is the hypotenuse of the three, and only three, right
triangles 75, lO0, 125;35, 120, 125;and,44, 117, I25'
276 ARTTHMETTC AND ALGEBRA r sOG-r 7OO
In the letter to Mersenne, Fermat declared that the same prime number
4n * I and, its square are each the sum of two squares in one way only; its
cube and biquadrate, each in two ways; its fifth and sixth powers, each in
three ways, and so on ad infinitum. Thus for n : 1,5 : 4 + | and 52 :
9 + 16; 53 : 4 + l2l :25 * 100; and so forth. The letter continues: If
a prime number that is a sum of two squares be multiplied into another
prime that is also the sum of two squares, the product will be the sum of two
squares in two ways. If the first prime be multiplied into the square of the
second one, the product will be the sum of two squares in three ways; if
multiplied into the cube of the second one, then the product will be the sum
of two squares in four ways I and so on ad infinitum.
Fermat stated many theorems on the representation of Prime numbers
in the form x2 + 2y2, x2 + 3y', x' + 5y', *' - 2y', and other such forms,
which are extensions of the representation as a sum of squares. Thus every
prime ofthe form 6z * I can be represented as x2 + 3y2; every prime ofthe
form Bz + I and Bn + 3 can be represented as x2 + 2y2. An odd prime
number (every prime but 2) can be expressed as the diflerence of two
squares in one and only one way,
Two theorems asserted by Fermat have since been referred to as the
minor and major theorems, the latter also known as the last theorem. The
minor one, communicated by Fermat in a letter of October 18, 1640, to
his friend Bernard Fr6nicle de Bessy (1605-75), states that ifp is a prime
and if a is prime to ,, then ap - a is divisible by p.
The major Fermat " theorem," which he believed he had proved,
states that for n > 2 no integral solutions of x" ! y" : zo are possible. This
theorem was stated by Fermat in a marginal note in his copy of Diophantus
alongside Diophantus' problem: To divide a given square number into (a
sum of) two squares. Fermat added, "On the other hand it is impossible to
separate a cube into two cubes, or a biquadrate into two biquadrates, or
generally any power except a square into two powers with the same expo-
nent. I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which however the
margin is not large enough to contain." IJnfortunately, Fermat's proof, il
he had one, was never found and hundreds of the best mathematicians
have not been able to prove it. Fermat stated in a letter to Carcavi that
he had used the method of infinite descent to Prove the case of n : 4 but
did not give full details. Fr6nicle, using Fermat's few indications, did give
a proof for that case in 1676, in his posthumously published Traiti des
triangles rectangles en nombres (Treatise on Numerical Properties of Right
Triangles).11
If we may anticipate, Euler proved the theorem for n:3 (Chap. 25,
sec, 4). Since the theorem is true for n : 3, it is true for any multiple o[ 3;
ll. M,in. de I'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 5, 1729, 83-166.

THE THEORY OF NUMBERS 277
for if it were not true for n : 6, say, then there would be integers x,y, and z
such that
x6+ya:26.
But then
(r')'+(y')":(z')s,
and the theorem would be false for z : 3. Hence we know that Fermat's
theorem is true for an infinite number ofvalues ofn, but we still do not know
that it is true for all values ofn. It is actually necessary to Prove the theorem
only for n : 4 and. for n an odd prime. For suppose first that z is not divisible
by an odd prime; it must then be a power of 2, and since it is larger than 2
it must be 4 or divisibte by 4. Let n : 4tn. Then the equation + ga : z'L
'cn
becomes
(*^)n+(g^)n:(.^)n.
If the theorem were not true for z, it would therefore not be true for n : 4'
Hence if it is true for n : 4,it is true for all z not divisible by an odd prime'
lf n : ?n where y' is an odd prime, then if the theorem were not true for z
it would not be tiue for the exponent p. Hence if true for n : P it is true for
any z divisible by an odd Prime'
Fermat did make some mistakes. He believed that he had found a
solution to the long-standing problem of producing a formula that would
yield primes for values of the variable z. Now it is not hard to show that
i' + I "u.rt ot be a prime unless rz is a power of 2' In many letters dating
from 1640 on 12 Fermat asserted the converse-namely, that (2)3" + I
represents a series of primes-though he admitted that he could not Prove
thls assertion. Later he doubted its correctness' Thus far only the five
primes 3, 5, 17,257, and 65,537 yielded by the formula are known' (See
Chap. 25, sec. 4.)
Fermatstatedandsketchedlstheproofbyinfinitedescentofthetheo-
rem: The area of a right-angled triangle the sides of which are rational
numbers cannot be a square number. This sketch is the only detailed one
ever given by him, and it follows as a corollary that the solution of *' +
la : za in integers is imPossible.
On polygonal ,rr-L".. Fermat stated in his copy of Diophantus the
importani theorem that every positive integer is itself triangular or the sum
of i or 3 triangular numbers I every positive integer is itself square or a sum
of 2, 3, or 4 squares; every positive integer is either pentagonal or a sum of
2, 3, 4, or 5 pintagonal numbers; and so on for higher polygonal numbers-
Mr"h *o.t *as required to Prove these results, which are correct only if 0
12. (Euares' 2' 206.
13. (Euarcs, l, 340i 3,271.
278 ARrrrrMETrc AND ALGEBRA r5oo-r7oo
and I are included as polygonal numbers. Fermat asserts that he proved

them by the method of infinite descent.
Perfect numbers, as \^re know, were studied by the GreeLs, and Euclid
gave the basic result ,A* 2'n-t(2a - l) is perfect if 2" - | is prime. For
n : 2,3,5, and 7, t}le values of2o - I are prime so that 6' 28, 496, and Bl2B
are perfect numbers (as noted by Nichomachus). A mariuscript of 1456
correctly gave 33,550,336 as the flfth perfect number I it corresponds to
z - 13. ln his Epitamc (1536) Hudalrich Regius also gave this fifth perfect
number. Pietro Antonio Cataldi (1552-1626) noted in 1607 that 2" - I is
composite if z is composite, and verified that 2L - I is prime for z : 13, 17,
and 19. Marin Mersenne in l&[4 gave other values. Fermat worked on the
subject of perfect numbers also. He considered when 2a - I is prime and in
a letter to Mersenne of June 1640 stated these theorems: (a) If z is not a
prime,2" - I is not a prime. (b) If z is a prime,2" - I is divisible only by
primes of the form 2kn * I if divisible at all. About twenty perfect numbers
are now known. Whether any odd ones exist is an open question.
By rediscovering a rule that \,vas first stated by Ttbit ibn Qorra, Fermat
in 1636 gave a second pair of amicable numbers, 17,926 and 18,416 (the
first, 220 and,2$4, was given by Pythagoras), and Descartes in a letter to
Mersenne gave a third pair, 9,363,548 and 9,437,506.
Fermat rediscovered the problem of solving x' - A!' : 1, wherein .,{
is integral and not a square. The problem has a long history among the
Grcels and Hindus. In a letter of February 1657 to Frdnicle, Fermat stated
the theorem that *3 - Ay' : I has an unlimited number of solutions when
..{ is poaitive and not a perfect square.la Euler erroneously called the equation
Pell's equation; it is now so known. In the same letter 16 Fermat challenged
all mathematicians to find an infinity of integral solutions. Lord Brouncker
gave solutions, though he did not prove that there was an infinity of them.
Wallis did solve the full problem and gave his solutions in letters of 1657 and
165816 and in Chapter 98 of his Algebra. Fermat also asserted that he could
show when x' - Ay' : B,for given ,4 and B, is solvable and could solve it'
We do not know how Fermat solved either equation though he said in a
lctter of 1658 that he used the method of descent for the former.
8. Tlu Relationship of Algebra to Geometry

Algebra, as we can see, expanded enormously during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. Because it had been tied to geometry, prior to 1500
equations of higher degree than the third were considered unreal. When the
study of higher-degree equations was forced upon mathematicians (as for
14. CEuorcs, 2, 333-35.
15. (Ewrcs,2, 393-35; 3, 312-13.
16. Fcrmat, (Euurcs, 3,457-€0, 490-503.
THE RELATTONSHTP OF ALGEBRA TO GEOMETRY 279
cxample by the use of trigonometric identities to aid in the calculation of

tables) or suggested as the natural extension of third degree equations, the
idea struck many mathematicians as absurd. Thus Stifel in his edition of
Rudolff's Coss (Algebra) says, " Going beyond the cube just as if there were
more than three dimensions . . . is against nature."
Nevertheless, algebra did rise above the limitations imposed by geo-
metric thinking. But the relationship of algebra to geometry remained com-
plicated. The major problem was how to justify algebraic reasoningl and the
answer, during the sixteenth century and a good deal ofthe seventeenth, was
to fall back upon the equivalent geometrical meaning ofthe algebra' Pacioli,
Cardan, Tartaglia, Ferrari, and others gave geometrical proofs of algebraic
rules. Vieta too was largely tied to geometry. Thus he writes l8 + 3B2A :
23, where I is the unknown and B and Z are constants, in order that each
term be of the third degree and so rePresent a volume. However, as we shall
see, Vieta's position on algebra was transitional. Barrow and Pascal actually
objected to algebra, and later to analytic methods in coordinate geometry
and the calculus, because the algebra lacked justification.
The dependence of algebra on geometry began to be reversed somewhat
when Vieta, and later Descartes, used algebra to help solve geometric con-
struction problems. The motivation for much of the algebra that appears in
Vieta's 1z Artem Analgtiram Isagogc, is solving geometric problems and
systematizing geometrical constructions. Typical of the application of
algebra to geometry by Vieta is the following problem from his Zttticorum
Libri Quinque z Given the area ofa rectangle and the ratio of its sides, to find
the sides of the rectangle. He takes the area as B planum and the ratio of the
larger side to the smaller as S to.R. Let r4 be the larger side. Then rRl/.!is the
smaller side. Hence B planum equals (ft/S) (l squared). Multiplying by S
gives the final equation, BS : RAL. Vieta tJren shows how from this equa-
tion I can be constructed by ruler and compass starting from the known
quantities.B and R/S. The idea here is that if one finds that a desired lcngth
x satisfies the equation axz + bx * c : 0r one knows that
x:-----Z-
-bq1/6--z-4*
and one can construct x by performin g on a, b, and c the geometrical con-
structions called for by the algebraic expression on the right-
Algebra for Vieta meant a special procedure ficr discovery; it was
analysis in the sense of Plato, who opposed it to synthesis. Theon of Ale:<-
andria, who introduced the term " analysis," defined it as the process that
begins with the assumption of what is sought and by deduction arrives at a
known truth. This is why Vieta called his algebra the analytic art. It Per-
formed the process of analysis, particularly for geometric problems' In fact
this was the starting point of Descartes's thinking on coordinate geometry
28o ARTTIIMETTC AND ALGEBRA r 5OO-r 7OO
and his work on the theory of equations was motivated by the desire to
further their use in solving geometric constructions.
The interdependence of algebra and geometry can be seen also in the
work of Marino Ghetaldi (1566-1627), a pupil of Vieta. He made a system-
atic study of the algebraic solution oldeterminate geometric problems in one
book of his Apollonius Rediaiaus (Apollonius Modernized, 1607). Conversely,
he gave geometric proofs ofalgebraic rules. He also constructed geometrically
the roots of algebraic equations. A full work on this subject is his De resolu-
tione et compositione mathematica (1630), published posthumously.
We also find in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the recognition
that algebra had to be developed to replace the geometrical methods intro-
duced by the Greeks. Vieta saw the possibility of using algebra to deal with
equality and proportion of magnitudes, no matter whether these magnitudes
arose in geometrical, physical, or commercial problems, Hence he did not
hesitate to consider higher-degree equations and algebraic methodology; he
envisioned a deductive science of magnitudes employing symbolism. While
algebra was to Vieta largely a royal road to geometry, his vision was great
enough to see that algebra had a life and meaning of its own. Bombelli gave
algebraic proofs acceptable for his time, without the use of geometry.
Stevin asserted that what could be done in geometry could be done in
arithmetic and algebra. Harriot's book Artis Analyticae Praxrs (1631) ex-
tended, systematized, and brought out some of the implications of Vieta,s
work. The book is much like a modern text on algebra; it is more analytical
than any algebra preceding it and presents a great advance in symbolism.
It was widely used.
Descartes too began to see great potentialities in algebra. He says he
begins where Vieta left off. He does not regard algebra as a science in the
sense of giving knowledge of the physical world. Indeed such knowledge, he
says, consists of geometry and mechanics; he sees in algebra a powerful
method wherewith to carry on reasoning, particularly about abstract and
unknown quantities. In his view algebra mechanizes mathematics so that
thinking and processes become simple and do not require a great effort of
the mind. Mathematical creation might become almost automatic.
Algebra, for Descartes, precedes the other branches of mathematics. It
is an extension of logic useful for handling quantity, and in this sense more
fundamental even than geometry; that is, it is logically prior to geometry.
He therefore sought an independent and systematic algebra instead of an
unplanned and unfounded collection of symbols and procedures tied to
geometry. There is a sketch of a treatise on algebra, known as Lc Calcul
(1638), written either by Descartes himself or under his direction, that treats
algebra as a distinct science. His algebra is devoid of meaning. It is a tech-
nique of calculation, or a method, and is part of his general search for
method.
THE RELATIONSHIP OF ALGEBRA TO CEOMETRY 28I
Descartes's view of algebra as an extension of logic in treating quantity

suggested to him that a broader science of algebra might be created, which
would embrace other concepts than quantity and be used to approach all
problems. Even the logical principles and methods might be expressed
symbolically, and the whole system employed to mechanize all reasoning.
Descartes called this idea a " universal mathematics." The idea is vague in
his works and was not pursued far by him. Nevertheless, he was the first to
assign to algebra a fundamental place in the system of knowledge.
This view of algebra, first envisioned fully by Leibniz and ultimately
developed into symbolic logic (Chap. 51, sec. 4), was also entertained by
Isaac Barrow, though in more limited scope. Barrow, Newton's friend,
teacher, and predecessor in the Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge,
did not regard algebra as part of mathematics proper but rather as a formali-
zation of logic. To him only geometry was mathematical, and arithmetic and
algebra dealt with geometrical magnitudes expressed in symbols.
No matter what philosophy of algebra may have been entertained by
Descartes and Barrow, and no matter what potentiality they may have seen
in it as a universal science of reasoning, the practical effect of the expanding
use of arithmetic and algebraic techniques was to set up algebra as a branch
of mathematics independent of geometry' For the time, it was a signiflcant
step that Descartes used a2 to rePresent a length as well as an area, whereas
Vieta had insisted that a second power must rePresent an area. Descartes
called attention to his use of a2 as a number, noting explicitly that he had
departed from his predecessors. Ife says r' is a quantity su ch that x2 : x : x :l'
Likewise, he says in La Giomitrie that a product of lines can be a line; he was
thinking of the quantities involved and not geometrically, as had the
Greeks. It was clear to him that algebraic calculation was independent of
geometry.
John Wallis, influenced by Vieta, Descartes, Fermat, and llarriot, went
far beyond these men in freeing arithmetic and algebra from geometric
representation. ln his Algebra (1685) he derived all the results of Book V of
Euclid algebraically. He too abandoned the limitation to homogeneous
algebraic equations in x andy, a concePt that had been maintained because
such equations were derived from geometrical problems. He saw in algebra
brevity and perspicuity.
Though Newton loved geometry , in his Arithmctica Uniltetsalis we find
for the first time an affirmation of the basic importance of arithmetic and
algebra as opposed to geometry; Descartes and Barrow had still favored
geometry as the fundamental branch of mathematics. Newton needed and
used the algebraic language for the development ofthe calculus, which could
be handled best algebraically. And as far as the supremacy of algebra over
geometry was concerned, the needs of the differential and integral calculus
were to be decisive.
282 ARTTHMETTc AND ALGEBRA r5oo-r7oo
By 1700, then, algebra had reached the point where it could stand on
its own feet. The only difficulty was that there was no ground on which to
place them. From Egyptian and Babylonian times, intuition and trial and
error had supplied some working rules; the reinterpretation of Greek geo-
metrical algebra had supplied others; and independent algebraic work in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, partly guided by geometric interpreta-
tion, led to many new results. But logical foundations of algebra analogous
to those Euclid had provided for geometry were nonexistent. The general
lack of concern, apart from the objections of Pascal and Barrow, is surprising,
in view of the fact that the Europeans were now fully aware ofwhat rigorous
deductive matlematics called for.
How did the mathematicians know what was correct ? The properties
of the positive integers and fractions are so readily derived from experience
with collections of objects that they seem self-evident. Even Euclid failed to
supply a logical basis ficr those books in tbe Elements that dealt with the
theory of numbers. As new types of numbers were added to the number
system, t}re rules of operation already accepted for the positive integers and
fractions were applied to the new elements, with geometrical thinking as a
handy guide. Letters, when introduced, werejust representations of numbers
and so could be treated as such. The more complicated algebraic techniques
seemed justified either by geometrical arguments like those Cardan used or
by sheer induction on specific cases. But none of these procedures was logi-
cally satisfactory. Geometry, even where called upon, did not supply the
logic for negative, irrational, and complex numbers, nor did it justify
arguing, for example, that if a polynomial is negative for x : a and positive
for * : D, that it must be zero between a ard. b.
Nevertheless, the mathematicians proceeded blithely and confidently to
employ the new algebra. Wallis, in fact, affirmed that the procedures of
algebra were not less legitimate than those of geometry. Without realizing
it the mathematicians were about to enter a new era in which induction,
intuition, trial and error, and physical arguments were to be the bases for
proof. The problem of building a logical foundation for the number system
and algebra was a difficult one, far more difficult than any seventeenth-
century mathematician could possibly have appreciated. And it is fortunate
that the mathematicians were so credulous and even naive, rather than
logically scrupulous. For free creation must precede formalization and logical
foundations, and the greatest period of mathematical creativity was already
under way.
Bibliographg
Ball, W. W. R.: I Short Acoount oJ tlu Histoty of Matlumatics, Dover (reprint), 1960,
Chap. 12.
Boyer, CarI B.: History of Analgtie Gcotrutry, Scripta Mathematica, 1956, Chap. 4.
283
BTBIJOGRAPITY
A History of Mattumatits,
-Oightnd, John Wiley and Sons, 1968' Chaps' 15-16'
Cajori, Florian: A Grcat Seaentcenth Ccntury Teaehcr of Mathcmatbs' Open
-2 Court, 1916.
A HisW of Mattumatics,2nd ed', Macmillan, 1919' pp' 130-59'
A History if Mathcnatital Notati'ons, Open Court, 1928' Vol' l'
Cantor, Moritz: Vorhsungen iibet Gesohichtc dcr Mathcmatik, 2nd
ed" B' G' Teubner'
ig00,;ottton Reprint Corp., 1965, Vol' 2, pp' 369-806'
Cardan, C.rbprro Onnia, lO vols', 1663, Johnson Reprint Corp''
1964'
Art' trans' T' R' Witmer' Massachlrsetts Institute
Cura.rro, Giroiamo: Tlu Great
of TechnologY Press, 1968.
Coolidge, Julian i.: Thc Matlumatics oJ Grcat Amatcurs' Dover (reprint)' 1963'
Chaps. G-7.
'N.;
David, F. Go^"r, Gods awl Gambling: TIu Origins and History of Probabilitg'
Hafner, 1962.
Descartes, Ren6: I[a Gcomctry, Dover (reprint), 1954, Book 3'
Dickson, Leonard E.: History of ttu Ttuory oJ Numbus, Carnegie
Institution' l9l9-
23, Chelsea (reprint), 1951, Vol' 2, Chap' 26'
189l-1912'
Fermat, Pierre de: @u*cs,4 vols. and Supplement, Gauthier-Villars'
1922.
Heath, Sir Thomas Ditphantus of Alexandria,2nd ed', Cambridge Univenity
L.:
Press, 1910; Dover (reprint), 1964, Supplement, Secs' l-5'
Hobson, B. W.': John Napbr awl tlu Inaention of Logaithms' Cambridge
Univenity
Pres, 1914.
Klein,- Jacob: Greek Mathematical Thought and ilu Ortgin of Algcbra' Massachusctts
irrrtit..,t. ofT.chnology Press, 1968' Contains a translation of Vieta's Ingoge'
Knott, C. G.: Napier Tcrccntenary Mcmorial Volume, Lotgmans Green' l9I5'
Montucla, 7. f.: ru*u;re des mathimatiqus, Albert Blanchard (reprint)'
196O'
Vol. l, Part 3, Book 3; Vol. 2, Part 4, Book I'

Mordell, J. L.: Tfuee ltetwcs on Fermat's Last Thcorcm, Cambridge University
Press'
1921.
Morley, Henry t Lifc oJCanlan,2 vols', Chapman and Hall, 1854'
Ne"utorr, Sir i.oact Matfumaticat Works, YoL 2, ed' D' T' Whiteside' Johnrcn
Reprint Corp., lg6T. This volume contains a translation of Aith"uticd
Univcrsalis .
Ore, Oystein: : The Gambling Sclmlar, Princeton University Press' 1953'

Cardam
; "Pascal and the Invention of Probability Theory," Amer' Math' Montlfu'
67, 1960,,109-19.
Pascal, Blaise: (Euarcs compLites, Hachette, 1909'
Sarton, George: Six Wings: Men of Scilncc in the Raaissancc, Indiana Univcrsity
Press, 1957, "Second Wing."
Schneider, i.: "D.. Mathematiker Abraham de Moivre (1667-1754)"'Archive
for History of Exact Sciences, 5, 1968, 177-gl7 '
6 and 9'
Scott, J. F,: A H-istory of Matlumatits, Taylor and Francis' 1958' Chaps'
Ttu Sciznt;.fi Work of Reru Dcscarks, Taylor and Francis' 1952' Chap' 9'
Thc Matlumatital Wo* of John Wallis, Oxfoil University Press' 1938'
Smith, David Eugene: History oJ Matlumalics, Dover (reprint), 1958' Vol' I'
Chaps' 8-9; Vol. 2, ChaPs.4 and 6'
284 ARrrHMErrc AND ALoaBRA r5oc-r7oo
A Sowcc Booh in Matluma!:as, 2 vols., Dover (reprint), 1959.

Struili, D, J.: ASourcc Book in Matlumatics, 1200-1800, Harvard University Press,
1969, Chaps, l-2.
Todhunter, I.: A History of tlu Milthcndtilal Theory of ProbabiliE, Chelsea (reprint),
1949, Chaps. l-7,
Turnbull, H.W.z Jamcs Grcgory Tcrcentennry Mctarial Volume, Bell ard Sons, 1g39.
Tlu Malfumatbal Disoocrics of Ncwtan, Blackie and Son, 1945.
Vieta, F.: Opera matlumatiaa, (1646), Georg Olms (repriut), 1970.
r4
The Beginnings of Projective
Geometry
I freely confess that I never had a taste for study or research

either in physics or geometry €xcept in so far as they could
serve as a means of arriving at some sort of Lnowledge of the
proximate causes. . , for the good and convenience of life, in
maintaining health, in the practice of some art. . . having
observed that a good part of the arts is based on geometry,
among others the cutting of stone in architecture, that of
sundials, that of perspective in particular.
GIRARD DES,{ROT'ES
l. The Rebirth of Geometry

The resurgence of significant creative activity in geometry lagged behind
that in algebra. Apart fiom the creation of the mathematical system of per-
spective and the incidental geometrical work of the Renaissance artists
(Chap. 12, sec. 2), very little of consequence was done in geometry from the
time of Pappus to about 1600. Some interest was created by the appearance
of numerous printed editions of Apollonius' Conic Sections, especially the
notable Latin translation by Federigo Commandino (1509-75) of Books I
to IV in V to VII were made available by other translators, and
1566. Books
a number of men, including Vieta, Willebrord Snell (t5BG-1626), and
Ghetaldi, undertook to reconstruct the lost eighth book.
What was needed and did arise to direct the minds of mathematicians
into new channels was new problems. One problem had already been raised
by Alberti : What geometrical properties do two sections of the same Pro-
jection of an actual figure have in common? A large number of problems
came from science and practical needs. Kepler's use of the conic sections in
his work of 1609 gave enormous impetus to the reexamination of these curves
and to the search for properties useful in astronomy. Optics, an interest of
mathematicians since Greek times, received greatly increased attention after
the invention of the telescope and microscope in the beginning of the
285
286 THE BEorNMNcs oF pRoJEcrrvE GEoMETRv
seventeenth century. The design of lenses for these instruments became a

major problem; this meant an interest in the shapes of the surfaces or, since
these surfaces are figures of revolution, the shapes of the generating curves.
The geographical explorations had created a need for maps and for studying
the paths of ships as represented on the sphere and on the map. The intro-
duction ofthe notion ofa moving earth called for new principles of mechanics
to account for the paths of moving objects; this, too, meant a study ofcurves.
Among moving objects, projectiles became more important because cannons
could now fire balls over hundreds of yards; prediction of path and range
was vital. The practical problem of finding areas and volumes began to
attract more attention. Kepler's Noua Stcrcomctia Doliorum Vinariorum (The
New Science of Measuring Volumes of Wine Casks, 1615) initiated a new
burst of activity in this area.
Another kind of problem came to the fore as a consequence of assimila-
tion of the Greek works. Mathematicians began to realize that the Greek
metlods of proof lacked generality. A special metlrod had to be devised for
nearly every theorem. This point had been made by Agrippa von Nettesheim
(1486-1532), as far back as 1527, and by Maurolycus, who had translated
Greck works and had written bools ofhis own on the conic sections and other
mathematical subjects.
Much of the response to the new problems resulted in minor variations
on old themes. The approach to the conic sections was altered. The curves
werc defined at the outset as loci in the plane instead ofsections ofa cone as in
Apollonius. Guidobaldo del Monte, for example, in 1579 defined the ellipse
as the locus of points the sum of whose distances from the foci is a constant.
Not only the conics but older Greek curves such as the conchoid of Nico-
mcdcs, the cissoid of Diocles, the spiral of Archimedes, and the quadratrix
of Hippias were restudied. New curves were introduced, notably the cycloid
(see Chap. 17, sec. 2). While all of this work was helpful in disseminating the
Greek contributions, none of it offered new theorems or new methods of
proof. The first innovation of consequence came in answer to the problems
raised by the painters.
2. Tlu Problems Raised by tfu Work on Paspectiue

The basic idea in the system of focused perspective created by the painters is
the principle of projection and section (Chap. 12, sec. l). A real scene is
viewed by the eye regarded as a point. The lines of light from various points
of the scene to the eye are said to constitute a projection. According to the
system, the painting itself must contain a section of that projection, the section
being mathematically what a plane passing through the projection would
contain.
Now suppose the eye at O (Fig. la.t) looks at the horizontal rectangle
.WORK ON PERSPECTIVE 287
PROBLEITS RAEED BY TIIE
ABCD. T]ne lines from o to the points on the foursides of this rectangle
constitute a projection of which OA, OB, OC, arLd OD are typical linee' If a
plane is ,ror"- inierpos"d between the eye and the rectangle, the lines of thc
irojectio, will cui through the plane and mark out on it ttr9 quadratgle
A'B'C'O'. Since.the sectio t, narrrlely A'B'C'D', ctates tble same imprereiau on
the eye as does the original rectangle, it is reasonable to ask, as Alb€rti did,
what geometrical propirties do the section and the original rectmgle have in
common ? It is intuitively appafent that the original figure and ttre section
will be neither congruent nor similar; nor will they contain the same area.
In fact the section need not be a rectangle.
There is an e:rtension of this problem: Suppose two different sections of
this same projection are made by two diflerent planes tlat cut the projection
at any angle. What properties would the two sections have in common?
fhe froble- *ty b" further entended. Suppose a rectangle ABCD is
viewed frim two different locations O' and Oo (Fig' la'2)' Then tlere are
two projections, one determined by O' and the rectangle an{ the -seclnd
deterrnined by o, and the rectangle. If a section is made of each projeixlion,
then, in view of the fact that each section should have some
properties in common with the rectangle, the two sections should have some
lorn*on geometrical proPerties.
some of the seventeenth-century geometers undertook to a.oswer these
questions. They viewed the methods and results they obtained T PT "l
liuclidean geometry. Ilowever, these methods and results, while indeed
contributing much to that subject, proved to be the beginaing of a new
288 TrrE BEGTNNTNGS OF PROJECfi\/E GEOMETRY
Glass screen ..1
Glass screen
Figure 14.2
branch of geometry, which in the nineteenth century became known as

projective geometry. We shall refer to the work by that name, but the
distinction between Euclidean and projective geometry was not made in the
seventeenth century.
3. The Work of Desargues

The man who first took up directly the problems just sketched was the self-
educated Girard Desargues (1591-1661), who became an anny officer and
later an engineer and architect. Desargues knew the work of Apollonius and
thought that he could introduce new methods for proving theorems about
conics. He did and, indeed, was fuliy aware of the power of these methods.
Desargues was also concerned to improve the education and technique of
artists, engineers, and stonecutters; he had little use for theory for its own
sake. He began by organizing numerous useful theorems and at first dis-
tributed his results through letters and handbills. He also gave lectures
gratis in Paris. Afterwards he wrote several books, one ol which taught
children how to sing. Another applied geometry to masonry and stonecutting.
His major text, which was preceded in 1636, by a pamphlet on per-
spective, was Brluillon pro|ect d'une atteinte aux ioinemens des rencontres du cdne
auc un plan (Proposed Draft of an Attempt to Treat the Results of a Cone
Intersecting a Plane, 1639).1 This book deals with what we would now call
l, (Euures, 1, 103-230.
THE'woRK oF DESARGUEs 289
projective methods in geometry. Desargues printed about fifty copies and

circulated them among his friends. Not long afterwards all copies were lost.
A manuscript copy made by La Hire was found accidentally in lB45 by
Michel Chasles and reproduced by N. G. Poudra, who edited Desargues's
work in 1864. However, an original edition of the 1639 work was discovered
about 1950 by Pierre Moisy in the Bibliothdque nationale (Paris) and has
been reproduced. This newly discovered copy also contains an appendix and
errata by Desargues that are important. Desargues's main theorem on tri-
angles and other theorems ofhis were published in 1648 in an appendix to a
book on perspective by his friend Abraham Bosse (1602-76). In this book,
Maniire uniaerselle de M. Desargtus, pour pratiqur la perspectitte, Bosse tried to
popularize Desargues's practical methods.
Desargues used curious terminology, some of which had appeared in
Alberti's work. A straight line he called a "palm." When points were marked
out on the line he called it a " trunk." However, a line with three pairs of
points in involution (see below) was a " tree." Desargues's intent in intro-
ducing this new terminology was to gain clarity by avoiding the ambiguities
in more customary terms. But the language and the strange ideas made his
book difficult reading. His contemporaries, except for his friends Mersenne,
Descartes, Pascal, and Fermat, called him crazy. Even Descartes, when he
heard that Desargues was introducing a nel r method to treat conics, wrote
to Mersenne that he could not see how anyone could do anything new on
conics except with the aid of algebra. However, after Descartes learned the
details ofwhat Desargues was doing, he respected it highly. Fermat regarded
Desargues as the real founder of the theory of conic sections and found his
book, which Fermat apparently owned, rich in ideas' But the general lack
of appreciation disgusted Desargues and he retired to his estate.
Before we note some of the theorems Desargues established, we must
introduce one new convention on parallel lines. Alberti had pointed out that
two lines that are parallel in some actual scene being painted (unless they are
parallel to the glass screen or canvas) must be drawn on the canvas so as to
meet in a point. Thus the lines ,4'B' and, C'D' in Figure l4.l above, which
correspond to the parallel lines z{B and CD, must, according to the principle
of projection and section, meet at some point O'. As a matter of fact, O and
r4B determine a plane and so do O and CD. These two planes cut the glass
screen in l'.8' and,C'D'but' since they meet at O, these two planes must have
a line in common; this line cuts the glass screen at some point O', which is
also the intersection of A'B' and C'D' . T}lre point O' does not correspond to
any ordinary point on AB or CD.In fact, the line OO' is horizontal, and so
parallel to AB and CD. The point O' is called a vanishing Point because it
does not have a corresponding point on the lines AB or CD, whereas any
other point on the lines A'B' or C'D' corresponds to some definite point on
AB or CD, respectively.
290
Figure 14.3
To complete the correspondence between points on the Iincs A'B' and

,4-B as well as between those on C'D' and CD, Desargues introduced a new
point on AB and. on CD. Called the point at infinity, it is additional to the
usual points on the two lines, and is to be regarded as the common point of
the two lines. Moreover any other line parallel to AB or CD is to have this
same point on it and meet AB and CD at this point. Any set of parallel lines
having a diflerent direction from that of AB ot CD is likewise to have a
corrrmon point at infinity. Since each set of parallel lines has a point in
coqrmon and there is an infinite number of different sets of such lines,
Dcsargues's convention introduces an infinity of new points in the Euclidean
plane. He made the further assumption that all these new points lie on one
Iine, which corresponds to the horizon line or vanishing line on the section.
Thus a new line is added to the already existing lines in the Euclidean plane.
A sct of parallel planes is assumed to have the line at infinity on each in
cotnmon; that is, all parallel planes meet on one line.
Thc addition ofa new point on each line does not contradict any axiom
or tlreorem of Euclidean geometry, though it does call for a change in word-
ing. Non-parallel lines continue to meet in ordinary points while parallel
lincs meet in the "point at infinity" on each of the lines. The agreement as
to the points at infinity is actually a convenience in Euclidean geometry, in
that it avoids special cases. For example, one could now say that any two
lines meet in oractly one point. We shall soon see more fully the advantages
of ttis convention.
Kepler, too, decided (1604) to add the point at infinity to parallel lines
but for a diflerent reason. To each line through P (Fig. la.3) and cutting /
there is one point, Q, on l. However, no point on I corresponds to Pl, the
parallel to I through P. By adding a point at infinity common to PB and I,
Kepler could affirm that every line through P cuts J. Moreover, after Q has
moved to "infinity" on the right and PQ has become Pl, the point of
intersection ofPB and I can be thought ofas being at infinity to the left of P;
and as Pft continues to rotate around P, the point of intersection Q' of PR
and I will move in from the left. Thus continuity of the intersection of PrR and
I is maintained. In other words, Kepler (and Desargues) regarded the two
" cnds" of thc linc as meeting at " infinity " so that the line has the structure
of a circle. In lirct, Kepler actually thought of a line as a circle with its center
at infinity. (
THE WORK OF DESARGUES 29r
Having introduced his points and lines at inflnity, Desargues was able
to state a basic theorem, still called Desargues's theorem, Consider ttre point
O (Fig. ru.q and triargle ABC. The lines from O to the various points oa the
sides of the triangle constitute, as we know, a projection. A section of this
projection will then contain a triangle A'B'C', where r4' corresponds to A, B'
to B, and C' to C. The two triangles ABC and A'B'C' arc said to be per-
spective from the point O. Desargues's theorem then states: The pairs of
corresponding sides l.B and, A'B', BC and B'C', arr.d AC and A'C' (or their
prolongations) of two triangles perspective from a point meet in three points
which lie on one straight line. Conversely, if the three pairs of corresponding
sides of the two triangles meet in three points which lie on one straight line,
then the lines joining corresponding vertices meet in one point. With specific
reference to the figure, the theorem proPer says that because AA', BB', arLd
CC' meet in a point O, the sides AC and, A'C' meet in a point P; AB andA'B'
meet in a point Q; and BC and B'C'rrrcet in a point R;andP, Q, and Elie
on a straight line.
Though the tieorem is true whether the triangles ABC arrd A'B'C'te
in the same or different planes, its proof is simple only in the latter case.
Desargues proved the theorem and its converse for both the two- and three-
dimensional cases,
In the appendix to Bosse's 1648 work, there appears another funda-
mental result due to Desargues, the invariance ofcross ratio under projection.
The cross ratio of the line segments formed by four points A, BrC, and D on
one line (Fig. 1a.5) is by definition
y*lA* Pappus had already introduced
this ratio (Chap. 5, sec. 7) and proved that it is the same on the two lines lD
and. A' D' . Menelaus also had a similar theorem about arcs of great circles on
THE EEGINMNGS OF PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY
Figure 14.5
a sphere (Chap. 5, sec. 6). But neither of these men thought in terms of
projection and section. Desargues did, and proved that the cross ratio is the
same for every section of the projection,
In his major work (1639), he treated the concept of involution, which
Pappus had also introduced but which Desargues named. Two pairs of
points l, B and A',8'are said to be an involution if there is a special point
O, called the center of the involution, on the line containing the four such
that OA.OB : OA'.OB' (Fig. la.6). Likewise, three pairs of points, l, B,
A', B', and A', B" are said to be an involution if OA.OB : OA'.OB' :
OA'.OB'. The points A and B, A' and. B', and. A' and Bo are said to be
conjugate points. If there is a point .E such that OA.OB :OE', then E is
called a double point. In this case there is a second double point d and O is
the midpoint of EF. The conjugate of O is the point at infinity. Desargues
used Menelaus' theorem on a line cutting the sides of a triangle to prove that
if the four points l, 8,, A', and B' are an involution (Fig. 1a.7), and if they
are projected from P onto the points AL, BL, A1, and Bi ofanother line, then
the second set of four points is also an involution.
In the subject of involutions, Desargues proved a major theorem. To
get at it, let us first consider the concept ofa complete quadrilateral, a notion
already partly treated by Pappus. Let B, C, D, and E be any four points in a
plane (Fig. l4.B), no three collinear. Then they determine six lines that are
the sides of the complete quadrilateral. Opposite sides are two sides that do
not have one of the four points in common. Thus .BC and DE are opposite,
Figure I4.7
293
Figure 14.8
as are CD and BE and BD ar'id' CE. The intersections O, fl and ''4 of the
three pairs of opposite sides are the diagonal points of the quadrilateral. Now
take t-h" forr, ,reiti.es B, C, D, -E on a circle. Suppose a line PM meets the
pairs ofsides inP, Q;d 1(; and G,H;and the circle in the pair L, M'Thae
four pairs of points are four pairs of an involution.
iurther, ,rppor. the entire figure is projected from some point outside
the plane of the figure and a section is made of this projection' The circle
williive rise to a conic in the section, and each line in the original figure will
girre ri.e to some line in the section. In particular, the quadrilateral in the
circle will give rise to a quadrilateral in the conic. Since an involution
projects into an involution, there follows the important and general result:
if a-quadrilateral is inscribed in a conic, any straight line not passing through
,r".t.* intersects the conic and the pairs of opposite sides of the complete
"quadrilateral in four pairs of points of an involution.
Desargues next introduces the notion of a harmonic set of points' The
points 24, B, E, arld F fotm a harmonic set if ,4 and B ate a pair of conjugate
points with respect to the double points E and F' of an involution' (The
definition that the cross ratio of a harmonic set is - I is a later
"r.r.rrt
approach.)z Since an involution projects into an involution, so does a
har-onic set project into a harmonic set. Then Desargues shows that if one
member of a harmonic set of points is the point at infinity (on the line of the
four), the other point of that pair bisects the line segment joining the other
two foints of the set. Further if A, B, A' , and' B' ate aharmonic set (Fig' 1a'9),
a.rd lf th" projection from O is formed, then if Ol' is perpendiculat to OB' ,
Ou4' bisecs arrgle AOB, and OB' bisects the suPplementary angle'
With the notion of harmonic set available, Desargues proceeds to pole
2. It is due to Miibius: Bdrgcent*clu Calcul (1827), p. 269.
294 THE BEGINNINGS OF PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY
Figure I4.9
Figurc 14.10
and polar theory, a subject already introduced by Apollonius. Desargues

starts with a circle and the point I outside (Fig. 14.10). Then on any line
from r{ cutting the circle in C and D, say, there is a fourth harmonic point B.
For all such lines from ,4 the fourth harmonic points lie on one line, the polar
of the point l. Thus the line 88' is the polar of l. Moreover, suppose we
introduce any complete quadrilateral for which I is one diagonal point and
whoee four vertices are on the circle. Thus we could choose C, D, D', and, C'
as the vertices of such a complete quadrilateral. Then the polar of I will go
through the other two diagonal points of this complete quadrilateral. (In the
figure, R is one of the two diagonal points.) The same assertions hold when
the point I is inside the circle. If the point I is outside the circle, the polar
ofl joins the points ofcontact of the tangents from z4 to the circle (the points
P and Q in the figure).
Having proved the above assertions for the circle, Desargues again uses
projection from a point outside the plane of the figure and a section of the
projection to prove that the assertions hold for any conic.
Desargues treats a diameter ofa conic as the polar ofa point at infinity.
We shall see in a moment that this definition agrees with Apollonius'.
Consider a family of parallel lines that cut the conic (Fig. 14.11). These
lines havc a point at infinity in common. lf A'B'is one such line, the har-
THE WORI( OF PASCAL AND LA IIIRE 295
Figure l4.l I
monic conjugate with resPect to A' and B' of the Point at infinity on A'B' is
the midpoint B of the chord r4'B'. Likewise 81, the harmonic conjugate of the
point at infinity with respect to .r4i and B'r, is the midpoint of the chord
liBi. These midpoints of a family of parallel chords lie on one straight line,
which is a diameter in Apollonius' definition also. Desargues then proves a
number of f,acts about diameters, conjugate diameters, and asymPtotes to
hyperbolas.
As we can now see, Desargues not only introduced new concePts,
notably the elements at infinity, and many new theorems, but above all he
introduced projection and section as a new method of proof and unified the
approach to the several types of conics through projection and section,
whereas Apollonius had treated each type ofconic separately. Desargues was
one of the most original mathematicians in a century rich in genius.
4. The Work d Pascal and La Hire

The second major contributor to projective geometry was Blaise Pascal
(1623-62). Born in Clermont, France, he was a sickly child and in poor
health during his short lile. His father, Etienne Pascal, intended to keep his
son from mathematics until he was fifteen or sixteen because he believed that
a subject should not be introduced to a child until he was old enough to
absorb it. But at the age of twelve Blaise insisted on knowing what geometry
was and, on being told, set to work on it himself'
The family had moved to Paris when Pascal was eight. Even as a child
he went with his father to the weekly meetings of the "Acaddmie Mersenne'"
which later became the Acad€mie Libre and, in 1666, the Acaddmie des
Sciences. Among the members were Father Mersenne, Desargues, Roberval
(professor of mathematics at the Colltge de France), Claude Mydorge
(1585-1647), and Fermat.
Pascal devoted considerable time and energy to projective geometry.
He was one of the founders of the calculus and in this subject influenced
Leibniz. As we have seen, he also took a hand in the start of the work on
probability. At the age of nineteen he invented the first calculating machine
to help his father in the latter's work as a tax assessor. He also contributed to
physics some experimental work on an original device for the creation of
296 THE BEGTNNTNGS oF pRoJEcTrvE cEoMETRy
vacuums, the fact that the weight ofthe air decreases as the altitude increases,
and a clarification ofthe concept ofpressure in liquids. The originality ofthe
work in physics has been questioned ; in fact, some historians of science have
described it as popularization, or plagiarism, depending upon whether or not
they wished to be charitable.
Pascal was great in many other fields. He became a master of French
prose; his PensCes and Lettres proainciales are literary classics. He also became
famous as a polemicist in theology. From childhood on, he attempted to
reconcile religious faith with the rationalism of mathematics and science, and
throughout his life the two interests competed for his energy and time.
Pascal, like Descartes, believed that truths of science must either appeal
clearly and distinctly to the senses or the reason or be logical consequences
of such truths. He saw no room for mystery-mongering in matters of science
and mathematics. "Nothing that has to do with faith can be the concern of
reason." In matters of science, in which only our natural thinking is in-
volved, authority is useless; reason alone has grounds for such knowledge.
However, the mysteries of faith are hidden from sense and reason and must
be accepted on the authority of the Bible. He condemns those who use
authority in science or reason in theology. However, the level of faith was
above the level of reason.
Religion dominated his thoughts after the age of twenty-four though
he continued to do mathematical and scientific work. He believed that the
pursuit of science for mere enjoyment was wrong. To make enjoyment the
chief end of research was to corrupt the research, for then one acquired " a
greed or lust for learning, a profligate appetite for knowledge.. . . Such a
study of science sprang from a prior concern for self as the center of things
rather than a concern for seeking out, amid all surrounding natural
phenomena, the presence of God and His glory."
In mathematical work he was largely intuitive; he anticipated great
results, made superb guesses, and saw shortcuts. Later in life, he favored
intuition as a source of all truths. Several of his declarations bearing on this
have become famous, "The heart has its own reasons, which reason does not
know." " Reason is the slow and tortuous method by which those who do not
know the truth discover it." " Humble thyself, impotent reason."
If one may judge from a letter Pascal wrote to Fermat on August 10,
1660, toward the end of his life, Pascal seems to have turned somewhat
against mathematics. He wrote: "To speak freely of mathematics, I find it
the highest exercise of the spirit; but at the same time I know that it is so
useless that I make little distinction between a man who is only a mathe-
matician and a common artisan. Also, I call it the most beautiful occupation
in the world; but it is only an occupation; and I have often said that it is
good to make the attempt [to study mathematics], but not to use our forces:
so that I would not take two steps for mathematics, and I am confident that
THE WORK OF PASCAL AND I.A HIRE 297
Pq
Figure 14.12 B
you are strongly of my opinion." Pascal was a man of manifold but con-
tradictory qualities.
Desargues urged Pascal to work on the method ofprojection and section
and suggested in particular the goal of reducing the many properties of the
conic sictions to a small number of basic propositions. Pascal took up these
recommendations. In 1639, at the age of sixteen, he wrote a work on conics
that used projective methods, that is projection and section. This work is now
lost, but Leibniz did see it in Paris in 1676 and described it to Pascal's
nephew. An eight-page Essag on Conics (1640), known to a few of Pascal's
contemporaries, was also lost until 1779, when it was recovered'8 Descartes,
who saw the 1640 essay, regarded it as so brilliant that he could not believe
it was written by so young a man.
Pascal's most famous result in projective geometry, which appeared in
both of the works just mentioned, is a theorem now named after him' The
theorem in modern language asserts the following: Ifa hexagon is inscribed
in a conic, the three points of intersection of the pairs of oPPosite sides lie
on one line. Thus (Fig. 14.12) P, Q, and ft lie on one straight line' If the
opposite sides of the hexagon are parallel, P, Q, and',R will lie on the line at
infinity.
We have only indications of how Pascal proved this theorem' He says
that since it is true of the circle, it must by projection and section be true of
all conics. And it is clear that if one forms a projection of the above figure
from a point outside the plane and then a section of this projection' the
section will contain a conic and a hexagon inscribed in it. Moreover, the
opposite sides of this hexagon will meet in three points of a straight line,
the points and straight line that correspond to P, Q, -R, and the line PQit of
the triginal figure. Incidentally Pappus' theorem (Chap. 5, sec' 7), which
refers to three points on each of two lines, is a special case of the above
3. (Euares, l, 1908, 243-60.

298 TIIE BEGINNINGS OF PROJECTr1rE GEOMETRY
Figurc 14.13
theorem. When the conic degenerates into two straight lines, as when a
hyperbola degenerates into its asymptotes, then the situation described by
Pappus results.
The converse of Pascal's theorem, namely, if a hexagon is such that the
points of intersection of its three pairs of opposite sides lie on one straight
linc, thcn the vertices of t}re hexagon lie on a conic, is also correct but was not
considered by Pascal. There are other results in Pascal's 1640 work but they
do not warrant attention here.
The method of projection and section was taken up by Philippe de La
Hirc (l&0-1718), who was a painter in his youth and then turned to
matherbatics and astronomy. Like Pascal, La Hire was influenced by
Desargues and did a considerable amount of work on the conic sections.
Some of it, in publications of 1673 and 1679, employed the synthetic manner
of the Greeks but with new approaches, such as the focus-distance definition
of thc ellipse and hyperbola, and some of it used the analytic geometry of
Descartes and Fermat. His greatest work, however, is the Sectioncs Conicaz
(1685) and this is devoted to projective geometry.
Lite Desargues and Pascal, La Hire first proved properties ofthe circle,
chiefly involving harmonic sets, and then carried these properties over to the
other conic sections by projection and section. Thus he could carry the
properties of the circle over to any type of conic section in one method of
proof. Though there were a few omissions, such as Desargues's involution
theorem and Pascal's theorem, in this 1685 work of La Hire we find practi-
cally all the now familiar properties of conic sections synthetically proved
and systematically established. In fact, La Hire proves almost all of Apol-
lonius' 364 theorems on the conics. FIe also has the harmonic properties of
quadrilaterals. In all, La Hire proved about 300 theorems. He tried to show
that projective methods were superior to those of Apollonius and to the new
analytic methods of Descartes and Fermat (Chap. 15) which had already
bcen crcated.
On the whole, La Hire's results do not go beyond Desargues's and
Pascal's. However, in pole and polar theory he has one major new result.
TIIE EMERGENCE OF NEW PRINCIPLES 299
He proves that if a Point traces a straight line, then the polar of the point
will rotate around the pole of that straight line. Thus if Q (Fig. 14'13) moves
along the line p, then the polar of I rotates around the pole P of the line p'
5. Tlu Emergerce oJ New Pritui.Ptes

Over and above the specific theorems created by men such as Desargues,
Pascal, and La Hire, several new ideas and outlooks were beginning to
appear. The first is the idea of continuous change of a matlumati'cal mtitg ftom one
state to another; in the present instance, the entity is a geometrical figure' It
was Kepler, in his Astronomiac Pars OPtica4 of 1604, who first seemed to grasp
the faci that parabola, ellipse, hyperbola, circle, and the degenerate conic
consisting of a pair of lines are continuously derivable from each other' To
effect this process of continuous change from one figure to another, say from
ellipse to parabola and then to hyperbola, Kepler imagined that one focus
is held fixed and the other is allowed to move along the straight line joining
them. By letting the moving focus go off to infinity (while letting the ec-
centricity approach 1), the ellipse becomes the parabola; then, by having the
moving focus reappear on the line but on the other side of the stationary
focrs, ihe parabola becomes a hyperbola. When the two foci of an ellipse
rnov" tog"ih.., the ellipse becomes a circle; and when the two foci of a
hyperbola move together, the hyperbola degenerates into two straight lines.
so that one focus could go off to infinity in one direction and then reaPPezrr
on the other side, Kepler assumed, as already noted, that the straight line
extended in either direction meets itselfat infinity at a single point, so that the
line has the property ofa circle. Though it is not intuitively satis$ing to view
the line in this manner, the idea is logically sound, and indeed became
fundamental in nineteenth-century projective geometry. Kepler also
pointed out that the various sections of the cone can be obtained by con-
iinuously varying the inclination of the plane that makes the section'
The notion of continuous change in a figure was also employed by
Pascal. He allowed two consecutive vertices ofhis hexagon to approach each
other so that the figure became a pentagon. He then argued from proPerties
of the hexagon to properties of the pentagon by considering what happened
to these properties under the continuous change. In the same manner he
passed from pentagons to quadrilaterals,
The second idea to emerge clearly from the work of the projective
geometers is that of transformation and inuariaue. To prqect a figure from some
point and then take a section ofthat Projection is to transform the figure to a
,"* o.r". The properties of the original figure that are of interest are those
that remain invariant under the transformation. other Seometers of the
4. Ad Viteltiorcm Paralipomena, quibus Astrorumiac lar Optica Iradilur (Supplcmcnt to
Vitello, Giving thc Optical Part of Astronomy).
3OO THE BEGTNNTNGS OF PROJECTTTTE GEOMETRY
seventeenth century, for example, Gregory ofSt. Vincent (1584-1667) and

Newton,s introduced transformations other than projection and section.
The projective geometers, too, undertook the search for general methods
that had been initiated by the algebraists, particularly Vieta. In Greek times
the methods of proof had been limited in power. Each theorem required
another plan of attack. Neither Euclid nor Apollonius seemed to have been
concerned with general methods. But Desargues emphasized projection and
section because he saw in it a general procedure for proving theorems about
all conics once they were proved for the circle. And in the notions of in-
volution and harmonic sets, he saw more general concepts than those of
Euclidean geometry. Indeed a harmonic set of four points, when one of the
four is at infinity, reduces to three points, one of which is the midpoint ofthe
Iine segment joining the other two. Hence, the notion of harmonic set and
theorems about harmonic sets are more general than the notion of a point
bisecting a line segment. Desargues and Pascal sought to derive the largest
possible number of results from a single theorem. Bosse says that Desargues
derived sixty theorems of Apollonius from his involution theorem and that
Pascal praised him for it. Pascal, by seeking the relationships of different
figures, such as the hexagon and pentagon, also sought some common
approach to these figures. In fact, he was supposed to have deduced some
400 corollaries from his theorem on the hexagon, by examining the conse-
quences of the theorem for related figures. However, there are no extant
works of his in which this is done. The interest in method is clear in the 1685
work of La Hire, for its major point was to show that the method of projection
and section was superior to Apollonius' methods and even to Descartes's
algebraic methods. This search for generality in results and methods became
a powerful force in subsequent mathematics.
Though the geometers were emphasizing generality of method, they
were unconsciously unearthing another kind of generality. Many of the
theorems, such as Desargues's triangle theorem, deal with the intersection
of points and lines rather than with the sizes of line segments, angles, and
areas, as is true of Euclidean geometry. The fact that lines intersect is logi-
cally prior to any consideration olsize because the very fact of intersection
determines the formation of a figure. A new and fundamental branch of
geometry, in which location and intersection properties, rather than size
or metric properties, mattered, was being born, However, the seventeenth-
century workers in projective geometry used Euclidean geometry as a base,
in particular the concepts of distance and size of angle. Moreover, these
geometers, far from thinking in terms of a new geometry, were in fact
trying to improve the methods of Euclidean geometry. The realization that
a new branch of geometry was implicit in their work did not come about
until the nineteenth century.
5, Principia, 3rd ed., Book l, Lemma 22 and Prcp. 25.
301
Although at the outset the motivation for the work in projective

geometry was a desire to help the painters, its goal became diverted to and
merged with the rising interest in the conic sections. But pure mathematics
was not congenial to the temper of the seventeenth century, whose mathe-
maticians were far more concerned with understanding and mastering
nature-in short, with scientific problems. Algebraic methods of working
with mathematical problems proved in general to be more effective, and in
particular to yield the quantitative knowledge that science and technology
needed. The qualitative results the projective geometers produced by their
synthetic methods were not nearly so helpful. Hence projective geometry was
abandoned in favor of algebra, analytic geometry, and the calculus, which
themselves blossomed into still other subjects of central importance in modern
mathematics. The results of Desargues, Pascal, and La Hire were forgotten
and had to be rediscovered later, chiefly in the nineteenth century, by which
time intervening creations and new points of view enabled mathematicians
to fructify the large ideas still dormant in projective geometry.
BibliographE
Chasles, Michcl: Apergu hbtoiquc des nithodts n giomitric,3rd ed., Gauthier-Villars
et Fils, 1889, pp. 68-95, l18-37' (Same as first edition of 1837.)
Cootidge, Julian L.: A History of Geonutriral Methods, Dover (reprint)' 1963, pp.
88-92.
A History of the Conir Sectians and Quadric Sufaccs, Dover (reprint), 1968'
Chap. 3.
"The Rise and Fall of Projective Geometry," Atnet Math. Monthlg,41,
t93+,217-28.
Desargues, Girardt (Ewres,2 vols., Leiber, 1864'
-:
Ivins, W. M., Jr.: "A Note on Girard Desargues," Scripta Math., 9, l9+3, 33--48.
"A Note on Desargues's Theorem," S*ipta Math., 13, 1947,205-10.
Mortimer, Erncst: Blaisc Pascal: Tlu Life antl Work of a Realist, Harper and Bros.,
1959.
Pascal, Blaise: (Euores, Hachette, l9l'$-21.
Smith, David Eugene: A Sourec Book in Mathcmaiics, Dover (reprint), 1959' Vol. 2,
pp. 307-14, 326-30.
Struik, D. J.: A Source Book in Matlumatics, 1200-1800, Ilarvard lJniversity Press,
1969, pp. 157-68.
Taton, Ren6: L' CEuure mathimati.qw de G. Dcsargues, Presses Universitaires de
France, 1951.
r5
Coordinate Geometry
. . . I have resolved to quit only absEact geometry, that is to

say, the consideration of questions which scroc onlg to cxcrcisc
tlu mind, and this, in order to study another kind of geometry,
which has for its object the explanation of the phenomena of
nzuf oBscenrss
l. Tlu MotioationJor Coordinate Geometry

Fermat and Descartes, the two men primarily responsible for thg next major
creation in mathematics, were, like Desargues and his followers, concerned
with gcncral methods for studying curves. But Fermat and Descartes were
vcry much involved in scientific work, keenly aware of the need for quantita-
tive methods, and impressed with the power of algebra to supply that method.
And so Fermat and Descartes turned to the application of algebra to the
study of geometry. The subject they created is called coordinate, or analytic,
geometry; its central idea is tle association ofalgebraic equations with curves
and surfaces, This creation ranks as one of the richest and most fruitful veins
of thought ever struck in mathematics.
Thar tfie needs of science and an interest in methodology motivated
both Fermat and Descartes is beyond doubt. Fermat's contributions to the
calculus such as the construction of tangents to curves and the calculation of
maxima and minima, were, as we shall see more clearly in connection with
the history of the calculus, designed to answer scieritific problems; he was
also a first-rate contributor to optics. His interest in methodology is attested
to by an explicit statement in his brief book , Ad Locos Planos et Soli.dos Isagoge
(Introduction to Plane and Solid Locil), written in 1629 but published in
1679.2 He says there that he sought a universal approach to problems in-
volving curves. As for Descartes, he was one of the greatest seventeenth-
century scientists, and he made methodology a prime objective in all of his
work.
l. Fcrmat usca these terms in the serxe orplained by Pappx. See Chap. 8, sec.2.
2. Guorus, 1, 9l-L03,
302
303
Figure l5.l
2. The Coordinate Geometry of Fennat

In his work on the theory of numbers, Fermat started with Diophantus' His
work on curves began with his study of the Greek geometers, notably Apol-
lonius, whose lost book, On Plane Inci, he, among others, had reconstructed'
Having contributed to algebra, he was prepared to apply it to the study of
curves, which he did in Ad Locos. He says that he proposed to oPen up a
general study of loci, which the Greeks had failed to do. Just how Fermat's
id"u, o., coordinate geometry evolved is not known. He was familiar with
Vieta's use of algebra to solve geometric problems, but it is more likely that
he translated Apollonius' results directly into algebraic form.
He considers any curve and a typical point J on it (Fig. l5.l ). The position
of J is fixed by a length l, measured from a point O on a base line to a point
Z, and the length E from Z to J. Thus Fermat uses what we call oblique
coordinates, though no y-axis aPPears explicidy and no negative coordinates
are used. His z4 and .E are our x and g'
Fermat had stated earlier his general principle: " Whenever in a final
equation two unkoown quantities are found we have a locus, the o(tremity
of one of these describing a line straight or curved." Thus the extremities
J, J' , Jn ,. . . of E in its various positions describc the " line'" His unknown
quantities, A and, E, are really variables or, one can say, the equation in ..{
and .E is indeterminate. Here Fermat makes use of Vieta's idea of having a
letter stand for a class of numbers. Fermat then gives various algebraic
equations in I and .E'and states what curves they describe. Thus he writes
* D in A @quetur B in E" (in our notation, Dx : By) arrd states that this
represents a straight line. He also gives (in our notation) the more general
equation d(a - *) : bY and, affirms that this too rePresents a straight line'
The equation " B quad. - A quad. dcquctur E quat' (in our notation'
82 - xi : y,) represents a circle. Similarly (in our notation), a' - * : k!2
rePresents an ellipse; a2 + xz : k!2 and' {y : 4 rePresent hyperbolas;
,' : zy represents a parabola. Since Fermat did not use negativc
".t
coordirrates, his iquations could not represent the full curve that he said they
described. He did appreciatc that one can translate and rotate axcs, because
he gives more complicated second-degree equations and states the simpler
fo.rils to which they can be reduced. In lirct, he affirms that an equation of
3O4 cooRDINATt GEOMETRY
the first degree in A and. E has a straight-line Iocus and all second degree
equations in I and .E have conics as their loci. In his Methodus ad Disquirendam
Maximam et Minimam (Method of Finding Maxima and Minima, 1637),3 he
introduced the curves ofy : va and y : x-",
3. Reni Descartes
Descartes was the first great modern philosopher, a founder of modern
biology, a first-rate physicist, and only incidentally a mathematician.
However, when a man of his power of intellect devotes even part of his time
to a subject, his work cannot but be significant.
He was born in La Haye in Touraine on March 31, 1596. His father,
a moderately wealthy lawyer, sent him at the age of eight to the Jesuit
school of La Fldche in Anjou. Because he was of delicate health, he was
allowed to spend the mornings in bed, during which time he worked. He
followed this custom throughout his life. At sixteen he left La Fldche and at
twenty he was graduated from the University of Poitiers as a lawyer and went
to Paris. There he met Mydorge and Father Marin Mersenne and spent a
year with them in the study of mathematics. However, Descartes became
restless and entered the army of Prince Maurice of Orange in 1617' During
the next nine years he alternated between service in several armies and
carousing in Paris, but throughout this period continued to study mathe-
matics. His ability to solve a problem that had been posted on a billboard in
Breda in the Netherlands as a challenge convinced him that he had
mathematical ability and he began to think seriously in this subject. He
returned to Paris and, having become excited by the power of the telescope,
secluded himself to study the theory and construction ofoptical instruments.
In t62B he moved to Holland to secure a quieter and freer intellectual
atmosphere. There he lived for twenty years and wrote his famous works.
In 1649 he was invited to instruct Queen Christina of Sweden. Tempted by
the honor and the glamor of royalty, he accepted. He died there of
pneumonia in 1650.
His first work, Regulae ad Directionem Ingenii (Rules for the Direction of
the Mind),a was written in 1628 but published posthumously. His next
major work was Le Mondz (System of the World, 1634), which contains a
cosmological theory ofvortices to explain how the planets are kept in motion
and in their paths around the sun. However, he did not publish it for fear of
persecution by the Church. In 1637 he published his Discours d.c la mithodc
lour bien conduirc sa raison, et chercher la ahitC dans les scienrcs.s This book, a
3. (Euarcs,l, 133-79; 3, 12l-56.

4. Publishcd in Dutch in 1692; CEuores, 10, 359-469.
5. (Euor*, 6, l-78.
RENE DESCARTES 3O5
classic of literature and philosophy, contains three famous appendices, Za

Giomitrie, La Dioptrique, arrd l-cs Mitiores. La Giomitrie, which is the only
book Descartes wrote on mathematics, contains his ideas on coordinate
geometry and algebra, though he did communicate ma'ny other ideas on
mathematics in numerous letters. The Discours brought him great fame im-
mediately. As time passed, both he and his public became more impressed
with his work. In 1644 he published Principia Phitosophiac, which is devoted to
physical science and especially to the laws of motion and the theory of
vortices. It contains material from his Systetn, whicln he believed he had now
made more accePtable to the Church. In 1650 he published Musicaz
Compendium.
Descartes's scientific ideas came to dominate the seventeenth century.
His teachings and writings became popular even among non-scientists
because he presented them so clearly and attractively. Only the Church
rejected him. Actually Descartes was devout, and happy to have (as he
believed) established the existence of God. But he had taught that the Bible
was not the source of scientific knowledge, that reason alone sufrced to
establish the existence of God, and that man should accept only what he
could understand. The Church reacted to these teachings by putting his
books on the Indcx oJ Prohibited Books shortly after his death and by preventing
a funeral oration on the occasion of his interment in Paris.
Descartes approached mathematics through three avenues, as a philos-
opher, as a student of nature, and as a man concerned with the uses of
,"i"r"". It is difficult and perhaps artificial to try to seParate these three
lines of thought. He lived when the Protestant-Catholic controversy was at
its height and when science was beginning to reveal laws of nature that
challenged major religious doctrines. Hence Descartes began to doubt all the
knowledge he had acquired at school. As early as the conclusion of his course
of study at La Fl0che, he decided that his education had advanced only his
perplexity. He found himself so beset with doubts that he was convinced he
had progressed no further than to recognize his ignorance. And yet, because
he had been in one ofthe most celebrated schools in Europe, and because he
believed he had not been an inferior student, he felt justified in doubting
whether there was any sure body of knowledge anywhere. He then pondered
the question: How do we know anything ?
H" ,oo, decided that logic in itself was barren: "As for Logic, its syl-
logisms and the majority of its other precepts are of avail rather in tlre
communication of what we already know, or . . . even in speaking without
judgment of things of which we are ignorant, than in the investigation ofthe
unknown." Logic, then, did not supply the fundamental truths.
But where were these to be found ? He rejected the current philosophy,
largely Scholastic, which, though appealing, seemed to have no clear-cut
foundations and employed reasoning that was not always irreproachable'
306 cooR.DrNATt oEoMETRY
Philoeophy, he decided, afforded merely "the means of discoursing with an

appearance of truth on all matters." Theology pointed out the path to
heavcn and he aspired to go there as much as any man, but was the path
corrcct ?
The method of establishing truths in all fields came to him, he says, in a
dream, on November 10, 1619, when he was on one of his military cam-
paigns; it was the method of m4|r.eg111ig1. Vt"A*glt,illSPPfTled to him
because the proofs based on its axid-rirs were unimpea'Chabld lnd because
authority counted for naught. Mathematics provided the method of achieving
ccrtainties and effectively demonstrating them. Moreover, he saw clearly
that the method of mathematics transcended its subject matter. He says, "It
is a more powerful insEument of knowledge than any other that has been
bequeathed to us by human agency, as being the source of all others." In the
same vein he continues:
.,. All the sciences which have for their end investigations concerning
order and measure are related to mathematics, it being of small im-
portance whether this measure be sought in numbers, forms, stars,
soun&, or any other object; that accordingly, there ought to exist a
gcneral sciencc which should explain all that can be Lnown about order
and measure, considered independently of any application to a Particular
subject, and that, indeed, this science has its own ProPer name, con-
secrated by long raage, to wit, mathematics. And a proof that it far
surpa$es in facility and importance the sciences which depend upon it is
that it embraces at once all the objects to which these are devoted and a
great maDy others beides. . , .
And so he concluded that "The long chains of simple and easy reasonings
by means ofwhich geometers are accustomed to reach the conclusions oftheir
most difficult demonstrations had led me to imagine that all things to the
knowledge of which man is competent are mutually connected in the same
way."
. From his study of mathematical method he isolated in his Rulcs Jot tlu
Direction of tlu Mind the following principles for securing exact knowledge in
any field. He would accePt nothing as true that was not so clear and distinct
in his own mind as to exclude all doubt; he would divide difficulties into
smaller ones; he would proceed from the simple to the complex; and,
lastly, he would enumerate and review the steps of his reasoning so
thoroughly that nothing could be omitted.
With these essentials of method, which he distilled from the practice of
mathematicians, Descartes hoped to solve problems in philosophy, physics,
anatomy, astronomy, mathematics, and other fields. Although he did not
succeed in this ambitious Program, he did make remarkable contributions
to philosophy, science, and mathematics' The mind's immediate appre'
hension of basic, clear, and distinct truths, this intuitive power, and the
RENE DESCARTES 3O7
deduction of consequences are the essence of his philosophy of knowledge.

Purported knowledge otherwise obtained should be rejected as suspect of
error and dangerous. The three appendices to hrs Discours were intended to
show tlrat his method is effective; he believed that he had shown this.
Descartes inaugurated modern philosophy. We cannot pursue his
system except to note a few points relevant to mathematics. In philosophy he
sought as axioms truths so clear to him that he could accept them readily.
He finally decided on four: (a) cogito, crgo sum (I think, therefore I am) ;
(b) each phenomenon must have a causel (c) an effect cannot be greater
than its cause; (d) the mind has innate in it the ideas of perfection, space,
time, and motion. The idea of perfection, of a perfect being, could not be
derived from or created by the imperfect mind of man in view of axiom (c).
It could be obtained only from a perfect being. Hence God orists. Since God
would not deceive us, we can be sure that the axioms of mathematics, which
are clear to our intuitions, and the deductions we make from them by
purely mental processes, really apply to the physical world and so are
truths. It follows, then, that God must have established nature according to
mathematical laws.
As for mathematics itself, he believed that he had distinct and clear
mathematical ideas, such as that of a triangle. These ideas did odst and
were eternal and immutable. They did not dcpend on his thinking them or
not. Thus mathematics had an external, objective existence.
Descartes's second major interest, shared by most thinkers of his age,
was the understanding of nature' He devoted many yearx to scienffic
problems and even experimented extensively in mechanics, hydrostatics,
optics, and biology. His theory of vortices was the dominant cosmological
theory of the seventeenth century. He is the founder of the philosophy of
mechanism-thaL all natural phenomena, including the functioning of the
human body, reduce to motions obeying the laws of mechanics-though
Descartes exempted the soul. Optics, and the design of lenses in particular,
was of special interest to him; par. of La GComCtrie is devoted to optics, as is
La Dioptrique . Descartes shares with Willebrord Snell the honor of discovering
the correct law of refraction oflight. As in philosophy, his work in science was
basic and revolutionary.
Also important in Descartes's scientific work is his emphasis on putting
the fruits of science to use (Chap. 11, sec. 5). In this attitude he breaks
clearly and openly with the Greeks' To master nature for the good of man, he
pursued many scientific problems. And, being impressed with the power of
mathematics, he naturally sought to use that subject; for him it was not
contemplative discipline but a constructive and useful science' Unlike Fermat,
he cared little for its beauty and harmony; he did not value pure mathe-
matics. He says that mathematical method applied only to mathematics is
without value because it is not a study of nature. Those who cultivate
3O8 COORDTNATE CEOMETRY
mathematics for its own sake are idle searchers given to a vain play of the
spirit.
4. Descartes's Work in Coordinate Geometry

Having decided that method was important and that mathematics could be
effectively employed in scientific work, Descartes turned to the application
of method to geometry. Here his general interest in method and his par-
ticular knowledge of algebra joined forces. He was disturbed by the fact that
every proof in Euclidean geometry called for some new, often ingenious,
approach. He explicitly criticized the geometry of the ancients as being too
abstract, and so much tied to figures " that it can exercise the understanding
only on condition of greatly fatiguing the imagination." The algebra that he
found prevalent he also qriticized because it was so completely subject to
rules and formulas "that there results an art full of confusion and obscurity
calculated to hamper instead of a science fitted to improve the mind."
Descartes proposed, therefore, to take all that was best in geometry and
algebra and correct the defects of one with the help of the other.
Actually it was the use of algebra in gqometry that he undertook to
exploit. IIe saw fully the power of algebra and its superiority over the Greek
geometrical methods in providing a broad methodology. He also stressed the
generality ofalgebra and its value in mechanizing the reasoning processes and
minimizing the work in solving problems. He saw its potential as a universal
science of method. The product of his application of algebra to geometry was
La GiomCtrie.
Though in this book Descartes used the improvements in algebraic
notation already noted in Chapter 13, the essay is not easy reading. Much of
the obscurity was deliberatel Descartes boasted that few mathematicians in
Europe would understand his work. He indicated the constructions and
demonstrations, leaving it to others to fill in the details. In one of his letters
he compares his writing to that of an architect who lays the plans and pre-
scribes what should be done but leaves the manual work to the carpenters
and bricklayers. IIe says also, " I have omitted nothing inadvertently but I
have foreseen that certain persons who boast that they know everything
would not miss the opportunity of saying that I have written nothing that
they did not already know, were I to make myself sufficiently intelligible for
them to understand me." He gave other reasons in La Giomitrie, such as not
wishing to deprive his readers ofthe pleasure ofworking things out for them-
selves. Many explanatory commentaries were written to make Descartes's
book clear.
His ideas must be inlerred from a number of cxamples worked out in
the book. He says that he omits the demonstration of most of his general
statements because if one takes the trouble to examine systematically these
DBSCARTES,S WORK IN COORDINATE GEOMETRY 309
Figure 15.2
e:<amples, the demonstrations of the general results will become apParent'

and it is of more value to learn them in that way.
He begins in La GComitrie with the use of algebra to solve geometrical
construction problems in the manner of Vieta; only gradually does the idea
of the equation of a curve emerge. He points out first that geometrical con-
structions call for adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing lines and
taking the square root of particular lines. since all of these operations also
exist in algebra, they can be expressed in algebraic terms.
In tackting a given problem, Descartes says we must suPPose the
solution of the problem already known and represent with letters all the
lines, known and unknown, that seem necessary for the required construction.
Then, making no distinction between known and unknown lines, we must
"unravel" the difficulty by showing in what way the lines are related to
each other, aiming at expressing one and the same quantity in two ways'
This gives an equation. We must find as many equations as there are un-
krrown lirres. If several dquations remain, we must combine them until there
remains a single unknown line expressed in terms of known lines. Descartes
then shows how to construct the unknown line by utilizing the fact that it
satisfies the algebraic equation.
Thus, suppose a geometric problem leads to finding an unknown
length x, and after algebraic formulation r is found to satisfy the equation
x' : ax + D' where a and b are known lengths. Then we know by algebra
that
(r) *:r+ a
(Descartes ignored the second root, which is negative.) Descartes now gives a
for x. He constructs the right triangle NLM (Fig' l5'2) with
"orrrt.r"tio.,
LM : b and NL : al2, and prolongs MN to O so that 'l[O : NL : al2'
Then the solution x is the lengtb oM. The proof that oM is the correct
length is not given by Descartes but it is immediately apparent for
OM: ON + Uw:i+
3IO cooRDTNATE GEOMETRY
Thus the orpression (I) for *, which was obtained by solving an algebraic
equation, indicates the proper construction for *.
In the first half of Book I, Descartes solves only classical geometric
construction problems with the aid of algebra. This is an application of
algebra to geometry, but not analytic geometry in our present sense. The
problems thus far are what one might call determinate construction prob-
lems because they lead to a unique length. He considers next indeterminate
construction problems, that is, problems in which there are many possible
lengths that serye zui zulswers. The endpoints of the many lengths fill out a
curve I and here Descartes says, "It is also required to discover and trace the
curve containing all such points." This curve is described by the final
indeterminate equation expressing the unknown lengths y in terms of the
arbitrary lengths *. Moreover, Descartes stresses that for each r, y satisfies a
determinate equation and so can be constructed. If the equation is of the
first or second degree, y can be constructed by the methods of Book I, using
only lines and circles. For higher-degree equations, he says he will show in
Book III how y can be constructed.
Descartes uses the problem of Pappus (Chap. 5, sec. 7) to illustrate what
happens when a problem leads to one equation in two unknowns. This
problem, which had not been solved in full generality, is as follows: Given
the poeition of three lines in a plane, find the position ofall points (the locus)
from which we can construct lines, one to each ofthe given lines and making
a known angle with each of these given lines (the angle may be different
from line to line), such that the rectangle contained by two ofthe constructed
lines has a given ratio to the square on the third constructed line; ifthere are
four given lines, then the constructed lines, making given angles with the
given lines, must be such that the rectangle contained by two must have
a given ratio to the rectangle contained by the other two; if there are
five given lines, then the five constructed lines, each making a given angle
with one of the given lines, must be such that the product of three of them
has a given ratio to the product of the remaining two. The condition on the
locus when there are more than five given lines is an obvious extension ofthe
above.
Pappus had declared that when three or four lines are given, the locus
is a conic section. In Book II Descartes treats the Pappus problem for the
case of four lines. The given lines (Fig. 15.3) are AG, GH, EF, and AD.
Consider a point C and the four lines from C to each of the four given lines
and making a specified angle with each of the four given lines. The angle can
be different from one line to another. Let us denote the four lines by CP,CQ,
CR, and CS. It is required to find the locus of C satisSing the condition
CP.CR = CS.CQ.
Descartes denotes AP by x and PC by y. By simple geometric con-
siderations, he obtains the values of CR, CQ, and C.S in terms of known
DESCARTES,S vvORK IN COORDINATE GEOMETRY 3tr
Figure 15.3
quaniities. He uses these values to form CP'CR : CS'CQ and obtains a

second degree equation in * and y of the form
(2) y' : Ag + BtcY + Cx + Dx'

where l, B,C,and D are simple algebraic expressions in terms of the known
quantities. Now Descartes Points out that if we select any value of r we have
a quadratic equation for y that can be solved for y; and then y can be con-
structed by straightedge and compass as he has shown in Book I' Hcnce if
one takes an infinite number of values for r, one obtains an infinite number of
values for y and hence an infinite number of points c. The locus of all thcse
points C is a curve whose equation is (2).
What Descartes has done is to set up one line (lG in the above figure)
as a base line with an origin at the point .r{. The *-values are then lengths
along this line, and the y-values are lengths that start at this base line and
make a fixed angle with it' This coordinate system is what we now call an
oblique system. Descartes's r and y stand for positive numbers only; yet his
equations cover portions of curves in other than what we would cdl the first
quadrant. He simply assumes that the locus lies primarily in thc first quadrant
and makes passing reference to what might happen elsewhcrc' That there is a
length for each positive real number is assumed unconsciously'
Having arrived at the idea of the equation of a curve, Descartes now
develops it. It is easily demonstrated, he asserts, that the degrce ofa curve is
independent of the choice of the reference axis; he advises choosing this axis
so that the resulting equation is as simple as possible. In another great stride,
he considers two different curves, eKpresses their equations with respect to
the same reference axis, and finds the points of intersection by solving the
equations simultaneouslY'
Also in Book II, Descartes considers critically the Greek distinctions
among plane, solid, and linear curves. The Greeks had said plane curves
were those constructible by straightedge and compass; the solid curves were
the conic sections; and the linear curves were all the others, such as the
conchoid, spiral, quadratrix, and cissoid. The linear curves were also called
mechanicai by the Greeks because some spccial mechanism was r€quired to
312 CO ORDINATE GEOMETRY
construct them. But, Descartes says, even the straight line and circle require
some instrument. Nor can the accuracy of the mechanical construction
matter, because in mathematics only the reasoning counts. Possibly, he
continues, the ancients objected to linear curves because they were in-
securely defined. On these grounds, Descartes rejects the idea that only the
curves constructible with straightedge and compass6 are legitimate and even
proposes some new curves generated by mechanical constructions. He con-
cludes with the highly significant statement that geometric curves ere those
that can be expressed by a unique algebraic equation (of finite degree) in *
and y. Thus Descartes accepts the conchoid and cissoid. All other curves,
such as the spiral and the quadratrix, he calls mechanical.
Descartes's insistence that an acceptable curve is one that has an
algebraic equation is the beginning of the elimination of constructibility as a
criterion of existence. Leibniz went farther than Descartes. Using the words
" algebraic " and " transcendental " for Descartes's terms " geometrical " and
" mechanical," he protested the requirement that a curve must have an
algebraic equation.? Actually Descartes and his contemporaries ignored the
requirement and worked just as enthusiastically with the cycloid, the
logarithmic curve, the logarithmic spiral (1og p : a0) , and other non-
algebraic curves.
In broadening the concept of admissible curves, Descartes made a
major step. He not only admitted curve$ formerly rejected but opened up
the whole field of curves, because, given any algebraic equation in x arrd. g,
one can find its curve and so obtain totally new curves. In Arithmetica
Uniocrsalis Newton says ( I 707), " But the Moderns advancing yet much
further [than the plane, solid and linear loci ofthe Greeks] have received into
Geometry all Lines that can be expressed by Equations."
Descartes next considers the classes of geometric curves. Curves of the
first and second degree in * andy are in the first and simplest class. Descartes
says, in this connection, that the equations of the conic sections are of the
second degree, but does not prove this. Curves whose equations are of the
third and fourth degree constitute the second class. Curves whose equations
are ofthe fifth and sixth degree are ofthe third class and so on. His reason for
grouping third and fourth, as well as fifth and sixth degree curves, is that he
believed the higher one in each class could be reduced to the lower, as the
solution of quartic equations could be effected by the solution of cubics.
This belief was of course incorrect.
The third book of La Giomitrie returns to the theme of Book I. Its
objective is the solution of geometric construction problems, which, when
formulated algebraically, lead to determinate equations of third and higher
degree and which, in accordance with the algebra, call for the conic sections
6. Compa.re the discussion in Chap.8, sec. 2.
Acta Erud., 1684, pp. 470, 587 ; 1686, p. 292 : Math. Schriftcn, 5, 127 , 223,226.
DESCARTES'S I^/ORK IN COORDINATE GEOMETRY 3r3
and higher-degree curvbs. Thus Descartes considers the construction problem

of finding the tilo mean proportionals between two given quantities a and q'
The special case when I : 2a was attempted many times by the classical
Greels and was important because it is a way to solve the problem of doub-
ling the cube. Descartes proceeds as follows: Let z be one of these mean
proportionals; then z2la must be the second, for we must have
a z zzla
2: -zzla:
ZlA'
Then, if we take zsf a2 to be g, we have the equation z must satisfy. Hence,
given q and 4, we must find z such that
(3) z3 : azq,
or, we must solve a cubic equation. Descartes now shows that such quantities
z and z2la can be obtained by a geometrical construction that utilizes a
parabola and a circle.
As the construction is described by Descartes, seemingly no coordinate
geometry is involved. However, the parabola is not constructible with
itraightedge and compass, excePt point by point, and so one must use the
equation to plot the curve accurately.
Descartes does zol obtain z by writing the equations in * andy of circle
and parabola and finding the coordinates of the point of intersection by
solving equations simultaneously. In other words, he is not solving equations
graphically in our sense. Rather he uses purely geometric constructions
(except for supposing that a parabola can be drawn), the knowledge of the
f;act that z satisfies an equation, and the geometric proPerties of the circle
and parabola (which can be more readily seen through their equations) '
Descartes does herejust what he did in Book I, except that he is now solving
geometric construction problems in which the unknown length satisfies a
third or higher-degree equation instead of a first or second degree equation'
His solution ofthe purely algebraic aspect ofthe problem and the subsequent
construction is practically the same one the Arabs gave, excePt that he was
able to use the equations of the conic sections to deduce facts about the
curves and to draw them.
Descartes not only wished to show how some solid problems could be
solved with the aid of algebra and the conic sections but was interested in
classifying problems so that one would know what they involved and how to
go aboul solving them. His classification is based on the degree of the
algebraic equation to which one is led when the construction problem is
formulated algebraically. If that degree is one or two, then the construction
can be performed with straight line and circle. If the degree is three or four,
COOR,DINATE GEOMETRY
the conic sections must be employed. He does affirm, incidentally, that all
cubic problerns can be reduced to trisecting the angle and doubling the cube
and that no cubic problems can be solved without the use of a curve more
complor than the circle. If the degree of the equation is higher than four,
curvcs more complicated than the conic sections may be required to perform
the corutruction.
Descartes also emphasized the degree of the equation of a curve as the
mcasure of its simplicity. One should use the simplest curve, t}lat is, the
lowcst degree possible, to solve a construction problem. The emphasis on
ttre degree of a curve became so strong that a complicated curve such as
thc folium of Descartes (Fig. 15.4), whose equation is x3 a yo - Saxg : Q,
was considered simpler thar g : st,
What is far more significant than Descartes's insight into construction
problems and their classification is the importance he assigned to algebra.
This key makes it possible to recognize the typical problems of geometry and
to bring together problems that in geometrical form would not appear to be
related at all. Algebra brings to geometry the most natural principles of
classification and the most natural hierarchy of method. Not only can ques-
tions of sotvability and geometrical consructibility be decided elegantly,
quickly, and fully from the parallel algebra, but without it they cannot be
decidcd at all. Thus, system and structure were transferred from geometry
to algebra.
Part of Book lI of La Giometric as well as La Diaptriqw Dex,czrte devoted
to optics, using coordinate geometry as an aid. He was very much concerned
with the design of lenses for the telescope, microscope, and other optical
instruments because he appreciated the importance of tlese instruments for
astronomy and biology. }Jis Dioptrique takes up the phenomenon of re-
fraction. Kepler and Alhazen before him had noted that the belief that the
angle of refraction is proportional to the angle of incidence, the propor-
tionality constant being dependent on the medium doing the refracting, was
DESCARTTS'S WORX, IN COORDINATE GEOMETRY 3r5
Figure 15.5
incorrect for large angles, but they did not discover the true law. Before 1626
willebrord snell discovered but did not publish the correct relationship,
sin i u1
il"r:['
where a, is the velocity of light in the first medium (Fig. l5'5) and u, the
velocity in the medium into which the light passes. Descartes gave this same
law in 1637 in the Dioptique' There is some question as to whether he dis-
covered it independently. His argument was wrong, and Fermat im-
mediately attacked both the law and the proof. A controversy arose between
them which lasted ten years. Fermat was not satisfied that the law was
correct, until he derived it from his Principle ofLeast Time (Chap' 24, sec' 3)'
In La Dioptriqtu, aftet describing the operation of the eye, Descartes
considers the problem of designing properly focusing lenses for telcscopes,
microscopes, and spectacles. It was well known even in antiquity that a
sphericailens will not cause parallel rays or rays diverging from a source, 'S
to focus on one point. Hence the question was oPen as to what shapc would
so focus the incoming rays' Kepler had suggested that some conic section
would serve. Descartes sought to design a lens that would focus the rays
perfectly.
'
He proceeded to solve the general problem of what surface should
separate iwo media such that light rays starting from one point in the first
into the second medium, and there
-.dir- would strike the surface, refract
converge to one point. He discovered that the curve generating the desired
surface of revolution is an oval, now known as the oval of Descartes; This
curve and its refracting properties are discussed h La Dinptriqw, and the
discussion is supplemented in Book ll of La Glomltrie'
The modein definition is that the curve is the locus of points M satisfring
the condition
FM ! nF'M :2a
where F and F' are fixed points, 2a is any real number larger than FF', and
z is any real number. lf n : I the curve becomes an ellipse' In the general
case, the equation ofthe oval is ofthe fourth degree it x andy, and the curve
316
Figure 15.6
consists of two closed, distinct portions (Fig. 15.6) without common point and
one inside the other. The inner curve is convex like an ellipse and the outer
one can be convex or may have points ofinflection, as in the figure.
As we can now see, Descartes's approach to coordinate geometry differs
profoundly from Fermat's. Descartes criticized and proposed to break with
the Greek tradition, whereas Fermat believed in continuity with Greek
thought and regarded his work in coordinate geometry only as a reformula-
tion of the work of Apollonius. The real discovery-the power of algebraic
methods-is Descartes's; and he realized he was supplanting the ancient
methods. Though the idea of equations for curves is clearer with Fermat than
with Descartes, Fermat's work is primarily a technical achievement that
completes the work of Apollonius and uses Vieta's idea of letters to represent
classes of numbers. Descartes's methodology is universally applicable and
potentially applies to the transcendental curves, too.
Despite these significant differences in approach to coordinate geometry
and in goals, Descartes and Fermat became embroiled in controversy as to
priority of discovery. Fermat's work was not published until 1679; however,
his discovery of the basic ideas of coordinate geometry in 1629 predates
Descartes's publication of La GiomCtrie in 1637. Descartes was by this time
fully aware of many of Fermat's discoveries, but he denied having learned
his ideas from Fermat, Descartes's ideas on coordinate geometry, according
to the Dutch mathematician Isaac Beeckman (1588-1637), went back to
1619; and furthermore, there is no question about the originality of many of
his basic ideas in coordinate geometry.
When Ia Giomitrit was published, Fermat criticized it because it omitted
ideas such as maxima and minima, tangents to curves, and the construction
of solid Ioci, which, he had decided, merited the attention of all geometers.
Descartes in turn said Fermat had done little, in fact no more than could be
easily arrived at without industry or previous knowledge, whereas he himself
had used a full knowledge of the nature of equations, which he had ex-
pounded in the third book of Za Giomitrie. Descartes referred sarcastically to
Fermat as aostre Conseiller De Maximis et Minimis and said Fermat was indebted
EXTENSIONS OF COORDINATE GEOMETRY 3I7
to him. Roberval, Pascal, and others sided with Fermat, and Mydorge and
Desargues sided with Descartes. Fermat's friends wrote bitter letters against
Descaites. Later the attitudes of the two men toward each other softened,
and in a work of 1660, Fermat, while calling attention to an error in Za
Giomitrie, declared that he admired that genius so much that even when he
made mistakes Descartes,s work was worth more than that of others who did
correct things. Descartes had not been so generous.
The emphasis placed by posterity on La Giomitrie was not what Descartes
had intended. while the salient idea for the future of mathematics was the
association of equation and curve, for Descartes this idea was just a means to
an end-the solution of geometric construction problems' Fermat's em-
phasis on the equations of loci is, from the modern standpoint, more to the
point. The geometric construction problems that Descartes stressed in Books
i and III have dwindled in importance, largely because construction is no
longer used, as it was by the Greeks, to establish existence'
One portion of Book III has also found a permanent place in mathe-
matics. Since Descartes solved geometric construction problems by first
formulating them algebraically, solving the algebraic equations' and then
constructing what the solutions called for, he gathered together work of his
own and of others on the theory of equations that might exPedite their
solution. Because algebraic equations continued to arise in hundreds of
diflerent contexts having nothing to do with geometrical construction
problems, this theory of equations has become a basic part of elementary
algebra.
5. Seaenteenth-Century Extensions of Coordinate Geornetry

The main idea of coordinate geometry-the use of algebraic equations to
represent and study curves-was not eagerly seized upon by mathematicians
foi ,rrany reasons. Fermat's book, the Ad Locos, though circulated among-
friends, was not published until 1679. Descartes's emphasis on the solution of
geometric construction problems obscured the main idea of equation and
cur.,e. In fact, many of his contemporaries thought of coordinate geometry
primarily as a tool for solving the construction problems' Even Leibniz spoke
of D"r"urt"r', work as a regression to the ancients. Descartes himself did
realize that he had contributed far more than a new method of solving
construction problems.
-have
In the introduction to Ia GComCtrie he says, " More-
over, what I given in the second book on the nature and properties of
curved lines, a.rd the method of examining them, is, it seems to me, as far
beyond the treatment of ordinary geometry as the rhetoric of Cicero is
beyond the a, b, c of children." Nevertheless, the uses he made of the equa-
tions of the curves, such as solving the Pappus problem, finding normals
to curves, and obtaining properties of the ovals, were far overshadowed by
3r8 COORDINATE GEOMETRY
the attention given to the construction problems. Another reason for the
slow spread of analytic geometry was Descartes's insistence on making his
presentation difficult to follow.
In addition many mathematicians objected to confounding algebra and
geometry, or arithmetic and geometry. This objection had been voiced even
in the sixteenth century, when algebra was on the rise. For example, Tar-
taglia insisted on the distinction between the Greek operations with geo-
metrical objects and operations with numbers. He reproached a translator
of Euclid for using interchangeably multiplhare and durere. The first belongs to
numbers, he says, and the second to magnitude. Vieta, too, considered the
sciences of number and of geometric magnitudes as parallel but distinct.
Even Newton, in his Arithmttica Uniaersalis, objected to confounding algebra
and geometry, though he contributed to coordinate geometry and used it in
the calculus. He says,8
Equations are expressions of arithmetical computation and properly have
no place in geometry except insofar as truly geometrical quantities (that
is, lines, surfaces, solids and proportions) are thereby shown equal, some
to others. Multiplications, divisions and computations of that kind have
been recently introduced into geometry, unadvisedly and against the first
principles of this science. . . . Therefore these two sciences ought not to be
confounded, and recent generations by confounding them have lost that
simplicity in which all geometrical elegance consists.
A reasonable interpretation of Newton's position is that he wanted to keep
algebra out of elementary geometry but did find it useful to treat the conics
and higher-degree curves.
Still another reason for the slowness with which coordinate geometry was
accepted was the objection to the lack of rigor in algebra. We have already
mentioned Barrow's unwillingness to accept irrational numbers as more than
symbols for continuous geometrical magnitudes (Chap. 13, sec. 2). Arithmetic
and algebra found their Iogical justification in geometry; hence algebra
could not replace geometry or exist as its equal. The philosopher Thomas
Hobbes (1588-1679), though only a minor figure in mathematics, neverthe-
less spoke for many mathematicians when he objected to the "whole herd of
them who apply their algebra to geometry." Hobbes said that these alge-
braists mistook the symbols for geometry and characterized John Wallis's
book on the conics as scurvy and as a "scab of symbols."
Despite the hindrances to appreciation of what Descartes and Fermat
had contributed, a number of men gradually took uP and expanded co-
ordinate geometry. The first task was to explain Descartes's idea. A Latin
translation of La Giomitrie by Frans van Schooten (1615-60), first published
in 1649 and republished several times, not only made the book available in
8. Aithmctica Uniaersalis, 1707, p, 282.
EXTENSIONS OF COORDINATE GEOMETR'Y 3I9
the language all scholars could read but contained a commentary which
e*panded iescartes's compact presentation. In the edition of 1659-61, van
Sclhooten actually grrr" ih" algebraic form of a transformation of co-
ordinates from one base line (r-axis) to another' He was so impressed with
the power of Descartes's method that he claimed the Greek geometers had
,r.J it to derive their results. Having the algebraic work, the Greeks,
according to van Schooten, saw how to obtain the results synthetically-he
showed how this could be done-and then published their synthetic methods,
which are less perspicuous than the algebraic, to an:;laze the world' Van
Schooten may harr" t""r, misled by the word " analysis," which to the Greeks
,n urrt urrulyring a problem, and the term "analytic geometry," which
specifically described Descartes's use of algebra as a method'
derived the equations
John Wallis, in De Scctionibus Conicis (1655), first
of th*e conics by translating Apollonius' geometric conditions into algebraic
form (much as we did in Ctrap. 4, sec. 12) in order to elucidate Apollonius'
results. He then defined the conics as curves corresponding to second degree
equations in * and y and proved that these curves- were indeed the conic
.e"tiors as known giomeEically. He was probably the first to use equations
to prove properties of the conics. His book helped immensely to spread the
idea of coofdinate geometry and to popularize treatment of the conics as
curves in the plane instead of as sections of a cone, though the latter aP-
proach persistJd. Moreover, Wallis emphasized the validiry of the algebraic
..urorri.rg whereas Descartes, at least in lis GtomCtric, really rested on the
g"o-"t.!, regarding algebra as just a tool' Wallis was also the first to con-
Iciourly irrtroirr". ,r.gulir" abscis.as and ordinates' Newton, who did this
later, may have gotten the idea from Wallis' We can contrast van Schooten's
remark on method with one by Wallis, who said that Archimedes and
nearly all the ancients so hid from posterity their method of discovery and
urruly.i, that the moderns found it easier to invent a new analysis than to scek
out the old.
Newton,sTheMcthodofFluxiansandltfinitc.Sarias,writtenabout16Tl
butfirstpublishedinanEnglishtranslationbyJohnColson(d.1760)under
the above title in I 736, coniains many uses of coordinate geometry, such as
sketching curves from equations. One of the original ideas it offers is the use
ofnew cJordinate systerns. The seventeenth- and even many ofthe eighteenth-
century men generally used one axis, with the y-values drawn at an oblique
or right anglJto that axis. Among the new coordinate systems introduced-by
N"*Io' is ihe location ofpoints by reference to a fixed point and a fixed line
through that point. The scheme is essentially our polar coordinate system'
The book many variations on the polar coordinate idea' Newton
"ort.irr
alsointroducedbipolarcoordinates.Inthisschemeapointislocatedby-its
distance from two fixed points (Fig. 15.7)' Because this work of Newton
did
not become known untii 1736, credit for the discovery of polar coordinates
320
Figure 15.7
is usually given to James (Jakob) Bernoulli who published a paper on what

was essentially this scheme in the Acta Eruditorum of 1691.
Many new curves and their equations were introduced. In 1694
Bernoulli introduced the lemniscate,e which played a major role in
eighteenth-century analysis. This curve is a special case of a class of curves
called the Cassinian ovals (general lemniscates) introduced by Jean-
Dominique Cassini (1625-1712), though they did not appear in print until
his son Jacques (1677-1756) published the Ellments d'astronomie in 1749. The
Cassinian ovals (Fig. l5.B) are defined by the condition that the product
r1r, ofthe distances ofany point on the curve from two fixed points S, and S,
equals D2 where D is a constant. Let the distance,SrS, be 2a.Thenif b > awe
get the non-self-intersecting oval. IfD : a we get the lemniscate introduced
by James Bernoulli. And if D < a we get the two separate ovals. The rec-
tangular coordinate equation of the Cassinian ovals is of the fourth degree.
Descartes himself introduced the logarithmic spiral,lo which in polar co-
ordinates has the equation p: a0, ar,Ld discovered many of its properties.
Still other curves, among them the catenary and cycloid, will be noted in
other connections.
The beginning of an extension of coordinate geometry to three dimen-
sions was made in the seventeenth century. In Book II of his Giomitrie
Descartes remarks that his ideas can easily be made to apply to all those
curves that can be conceived of as generated by the regular movements of a
point in three-dimensional space. To represent such curves algebraically his
plan is to drop perpendiculars from each point of the curve upon two planes
9. :
Acta Erutl,, Sept. 1694 Olera,2,608-12.
10. Letter to Mersenne of Sept. 12, 1638: CEuures, 2, 360,
TIIE IMPORTANCE OF COORDINATE GEOMEIIRY 32r
PG, t, z)
o
intersecting at right angles (Fig. 15.9). The ends of these perpendiculars will
each describe a curve in the respective plane. These plane curves can then
be treated by the method already given' Earlier in Book II Descartes
observes that one equation in three unknowns for the determination of the
typical point C of a locus represents a plane, a sphere, or a more complex
surface. Clearly he appreciated thas his method could be extended to curves
and surfaces in three-dimensional space, but he did not himself go further
with the extension.
Fermat, in a letter of 1643, gave a brief sketch of his ideas on analytic
geometry of three dimensions' He speaks of cyclindrical surfaces, elliptic
paraboloids, hyperboloids of two sheets, and ellipsoids. He then says that, to
crown the introduction ofplane curves, one should study curves on surfaces'
"This theory is susceptible of being treated by a general method which if I
have leisure I will explain." In a work of half a page, Nouus Secundarum,tr he
says that an equation in three unknowns gives a surface.
La Hire, in his Nouueaux ilimens des sections coniques (1679), was a little
more specifi.c about three-dimensional coordinate geometry. To represent a
surface, he first represented a point P in space by the three coordinates
indicated in Figure 15.10 and actually wrote the equation of a surface'
However, the development of three-dimensional coordinate geometry is the
work of the eighteenth century and will be discussed later.
6. The Importance dCoordinate Geometry

In light of the fact that algebra had made considerable progress before
Fermat and Descartes entered the mathematical scene, coordinate geometry
ll. @w.,res, l, 186-87; 3, 161-62.

322 cooRDTNATE GEoMETRY
lvas not a great technical achievement. For Fermat it was an algebraic

rephrasing of Apollonius. With Descartes it arose as an almost accidental
discovery as he continued the work of Vieta and others in expediting the
solution ofdeterminate construction problems by the introduction ofalgebra.
But coordinate geometry changed the face of mathematics.
By arguing that a curve is any locus that has an algebraic equation,
Descartes broadened in one swoop the domain of mathematics. When one
considers the variety of curves that have come to be accepted and used in
mathematics and compares this assemblage with what the Greeks had
acccpted, onc sees how important it was that the Greek barriers be stormed.
Through coordinate geometry Descartes sought to introduce method in
geometry. He achieved far more than he envisioned. It is commonplace today
to recognize not only how readily one can prove, with the aid ofthe algebra,
any number of facts about curves, but also that the method of approaching
the problems is almost automatic. The methodology is even more powerful.
When letters began to be used by Wallis and Newton to stand for positive and
negative numbers and later even for complex numbers, it became possible
to subsume under one algebraic treatment many cases that pure geometry
would have had to treat separately. For example, in synthetic geometry, to
prove that the altitudes ofa triangle meet in a point, intersections inside and
outside the eiangle are considered separately. In coordinate geometry they
are considered together.
Coordinate geometry made mathematics a double-edged tool. Geo-
metric concepts could be formulated algebraically and geometric goals
attained through the algebra. Conversely, by interpreting algebraic state-
ments geometrically one could gain an intuitive grasp of their meanings as
$,ell as suggestions for the deduction of new conclusions. These virtues were
cited by Lagrange in his bgons ,ilhnmtaires sur les matMmatiqucs zr2 "As Iong as
algebra and geometry travelled separate paths their advance was slow and
their applications limited. But when these two sciences joined company,
they drew from each other fresh vitality and thenceforward marched on at
a rapid pace towards perfection." Indeed the enormous power mathematics
developed from the seventeenth century on must be attributed, to a very
large o(tent, to coordinate geometry.
The most significant virtue of coordinate geometry was that it provided
science with just that mathematical facility it had always sorely needed and
which, in the seventeentl century, was being openly demanded--quantitative
tools. The study of the physical world does seem to call primarily for geometry.
Objects are basically geometrical figures, and the paths of moving bodies are
curves. Indeed Descartes himself thought that all ofphysics could be reduced
to geomctry. But, as we have pointed out, the uses of science in geodesy,
navigation, calendar-reckoning, asEonomical predictions, projectile motion,
12. (harw, 7 , l8S-287, p. 271 in part.
THE IMPORTANCE OF COORDINATE GEOMETRY 323
and even the design of lenses, which Descartes himself undertook, call for
quantitative knowledge. coordinate geometry made possible the expression
of shrpo and paths in allebraic form, from which quantitative knowledge
could be derived.
Thus algebra, which Descartes had thought wasjust a tool, an octension
of logic rather than part of mathematics proPer, became more vital than
g.o-1t y. In fact, coordinate geometry paved the way for a complete
ieversal of the roles of algebra and geometry. Whereas from Greek times until
about 1600 geometry dominated mathematics and algebra was subordinate,
after 1600 algeb." became the basic mathematical subject; in this trans-
position of roles the calculus was to be the decisive factor. The ascendancy of
algeb.a aggravated the difficulty to which we have already called attention,
,ra=m"ly, ihut thet" was no logical foundation for arithmetic and algebra;
but nothing was done about it until the late nineteenth century'
The fact that algebra was built up on an empirical basis has led to
confusion in mathemalical terminology. The subject created by Fermat and
Descartes is usually referred to as analytic geometry' The word " analytic "
is inappropriate; coordinate geometry or algebraic geometry (which now has
u.rothet rneaning) would be more suitable. The word "analysis" had been
used since Plato's time to mean the process of analyzing by working backward
from what is to be proved until one arrives at something known. In this sense
it was opposed to " synthesis," which describes the deductive presentation'
abo,.rt 1-SgO Vieta rejected the word " algebra" as having no meaning in the
European language and proposed the term "analysis" (Chap' 13, sec' 8); the
suggestio., *u. ,rot adopted. However, for him and for Descartes, the word
" a'r'alysis " was still somewhat appropriate to describe the application of
algebra to geometry because the algebra served to analyze the geometric
construction problem. One assumed the desired geometric length was
known, founJ an equation that this length satisfied, manipulated the
equation,' and then saw how to construct the required length' Thus Jacques
O'run^ (1640-1717) said in his Dictionary (1690) that moderns did
their analysis by algebra. In the famous eighteenth-centwy huyclopldit,
d'Alemberi used " algebra " and "analysis" as synonyms' Gradually,
"analysis" came to mean the algebraic method, though the new coordinate
geometry, up to about the end of the eighteenth century, was most often
iormally described as the application of algebra to geometry' By the end of
the ceniury the term " analytic geometry" became standard and was fre-
quently used in titles of books.
-
However, as algebra became the dominant subject, mathematicians
came to regard it as having a much greater function than the analysis of a
problem in the Greek sense. In the eighteenth century the view that algebra
as applied to geometry was more than a tool-that algebra itself was a basic
meti;d of introducing and studying curves and surlirces (the supposed view
324 COORDINATE GEOMETRY
of Fermat as opposed to Descartes)-won out, as a result of the work of

Euler, Lagrange, and Monge. Hence the term "analytic geometry" implied
proofas well as the use ofthe algebraic method. Consequently we now speak
of analytic geometry as opposed to synthetic geometry, and we no longer
mean that one is a method of invention and the other of proof. Both are
deductive.
In the meantime the calculus and extensions such as infinite series
entered mathematics. Both Newton and Leibniz regarded the calculus as an
extension of algebra; it was the algebra of the infinite, or the algebra'that
dealt with an infinite number of terms, as in the case of infinite series. As late
as 1797, Lagrange, in Thiorie dts fonctions analytiques, said that the calculus
and its developments were only a generalization of elementary algebra.
Since algebra and analysis had been synonyms, the calculus was refered to
as analysis. In a famous calculus text of 1748 Euler used the term "in-
finitesimal analysis" to describe the calculus. This term was used until the
late nineteenth century, when the word "analysis" was adopted to describe
the calculus and those branches of mathematics built on it. Thus we are left
with a confusing situation in which the term " analysis " embraces all the
developments based on limits, but "analytic geometry" involves no limit
Processes.
Bi.bliography
Boyer, Carl B,: History of Analytic Geometry, Scripta lVlathematica, 1956.
Cantor, Moritz: Vorlesungen ilber Geschichte der Mathematik,2nd ed., B. G. Teubner,
1900, Johnson Reprint Corp., 1965, Vol. 2, pp. 806-76.
Chasles, ll;[.ichel: Apngu historique sur I'origine et le diteloppement des mithodes cn gilomitrie,
3rd ed., Gauthier-Villars et Fils, 1889, Chaps. 2-3 and relevant notes.
Coolidge, Julian L. : A History of Geometrical Methods, Dover (reprint), 1963, pp.
I l7-31.
Descartes, Ren6: Za G6omitrie (French and English), Dover (reprint), 1954.
(Eulres, 12 vols., Cerll I897-1913.
Fermat, Pierre de:. (Eutres, 4 vols. and Supplement, Gauthier-Villars, 189l-1912;
Supplement, 1922.
Montucla, J. F.: Histoire des mathimatiques, Albert Blanchard (reprint), 1960, Vol.
2, pp. 102-77.
Scott, J. F.z The Scientific Work of Reni Descartes, Taylor and Francis, 1952.
Smith, David E,: A Source Book in Mathemallcs, Dover (reprint), 1959, Vol. 2, pp.
389-402.
Struik, D. J.: A Source Book in Mathematics, 1200-1800, Harvard IJniversity Press,
1969, pp. 87-93, 143-57.
Wallis, John: Opera,3 vols., (1693-99), Georg Olms (reprint), 1968.
Vrooman, Jack R,: Reni Descailes: A Biography, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1970.
Vuillemin, Jtles: Mathimatiques et mitaphysique chez Descartes, Presses Universitaires
de France, 1960.
I6
The Mathem atization of Science
So that we may say the door is now opened, for the first
time, to a new method fraught with numerous and wonderful
results which in future years will command the attention of
other minds. GALTLEo GALTLET
l. Introduction
By 1600 the European scientists were unquestionably impressed with the
importance of malhematics for the study of nature' The strongest evidence
of ihis conviction was the willingness of Copernicus and Kepler to overturn
the accepted laws of astronomy and mechanics and religious doctrines for
the sake of a theory which in their time had only mathematical advantages.
However, the astonishing successes of modern science and the cnormous
impetus io creative work ihat mathematics derived from that source probably
*ould not have come about if science had continued in the footsteps of the
past. But in the seventeenth century two men, Descartes and Galileo'
ievolutionized the very nature of scientific activity' They selected the con-
cepts science should ernploy, redefined the goals of scientific activity, and
aliered the methodology of science. Their reformulation not only imparted
unexpected arrd urrprecldented Power to science but bound it indissolubly
to mathematics. In fact, their plan practically reduced theoretical science to
mathematics. To understand the spirit that animated mathematics from
the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries, we must first examine
the ideas of Descartes and Galileo.
2. Dsscartes's ConcePt of Science

Descartes proclaimed explicitly that the essence of science was mathematics'
He says that he " neithir admits nor hopes for any principles in Phylics
other ihan those which are in Geometry or in abstract mathematics, be-
cause thus all phenomena of nature are explained and some demonstrations
of them can be given." The objective world is space solidified, or geometry
incarnate. Its properties should therefore be deducible from the first principle
of geometry.
325
326 THE MATTTEMATTZATToN or soIENcE
Descartes elaborated on why the world must be accessible and reducible

to mathematics. He irsisted that the most fundamental and reliable proper-
ties of matter are shape, o(tension, and motion in space and time. Since
shape is just ortension, Descartes asserted, "Give me extension and motion
and I shall construct the universe." Motion itself resulted from the action
of forces on molecules. Descartes was convinced that these forces obeyed in-
variable mathematical lawsl and, since extension and motion were mathe-
matically orpressible, all phenomena were mathematically describable.
Descartes's mechanistic philosophy extended even to the functioning
of the human body. He believed that laws of mechanics would explain life
in man and animals, and in his work in physiology he used heat, hydraulics,
tubcs, valves, and the mechanical actions of levers to explain the actions of
the body. However, God and the soul were exempt from mechanism.
If Descartes regarded tlle external world as consisting only of matter
in motion, how did he account for tastes, smells, colors, and the qualities of
sounds ? Here he adopted the old Greek doctrine of primary and secondary
qualities which, as stated by Democritus, maintained that ,,sweet and bitter,
cold and wartn, as well as the colors, all these things exist but in opinion
and not in reality; what really exist are unchangeable particles, atoms, and
their motions in empty space." The primary qualities, matter and motion,
exist in the physical world; the secondary qualities are only effects the
primary qualities induce in the sense organs of human beings by the impact
of external atoms on these organs.
Thus to Descartes there are two worlds I one, a huge, harmoniously
daigncd mathematical machine existing in space and time, and the other,
the world of thinking minds. The effect of elements in the first world on the
second produces the nonmathematical or secondary qualities of matter.
Descartes affirmed further that the laws of nature are invariable, since they
are but part of a predetermined mathematical pattern, and that God could
not alter invariable nature. Here Descartes denied the prevailing belief
that God continually intervened in the functioning of the universe.
Though Descartes's philosophical and scientific doctrines subverted
Aristotelianism and Scholasticism, he was a Scholastic in one fundamental
r6pcct: he drew from his own mind propositions about the nature of being
and reality. He believed that there are a priori truths and that the intellect
by its own power may arrive at a perfect knowledge of all things; he stated
laws of motion, for example, on the basis of a priori reasoning. (Actually in
his biological work he did experiment, and he drew vital conclusions from
the experiments.) However, apart from his reliance upon a priori principles,
he did promulgate a general and systematic philosophy that shattered the
hold of Scholasticism and opened up fresh channels of thought, His attempt
to sweep away all preconceptions and prejudices was a clear declaration of
revolt from the past. By redueing natural phenomena to purely physical
OALILEO,S APPROACH TO SCIENCE 327
happenings he did much to rid science of mysticism and occult forces'

D"r""rt"ri, writings were highly influential ; his deductive and systematic
philosophy pervaded the seventeenth century and impressed Newton'
with the importance of motion' Daintily bound expositions of
"rp""iuity,
his philosophy even adorned ladies' dressing tables'
3. Galileo's APProoth to Science

Though Galileo Galilei's philosophy of science agreed in large part with
Desca"rtes's, it was Galileo who formulated the more radical, more
effective,
and more procedures for modern science and who by his own work
"orr".","
demonstrated their effectiveness.
Galileo ( 1564-1642), born in Pisa to a cloth merchant, entered the
University of Pisa to study medicine. The courses there were still at about
thelevelofthemedievalcurriculum;Galileolearnedhismat}rematics
privately from a practical engineer, and at the age of seventeen switched
iro- -"di"irr" to mathematics. After about eight years of study hc applied
for a teaching position at the University of Bologna but was refused as not
sufficiently distinguished. He did secure a professorship of mathematics
at
Pisa. While there, he began to attack Aristotelian science; and he did not
hesitatetoexPresshisviewseventhoughhiscriticismsalienatedhiscol.
leagues. ffe haa ako begun to write important mathematical papen
that
aro"used jealousy in the less competent. Galileo was made to
feel uncomfort-
ableandleftinl5g2toacceptthepositionofprofessorofmathernaticsat
the University of Padua. There he wrote a short book, b necanidu (l6M) '
After eighteen years at Padua he was invited to Florence by the Grand Duke
cosimo-Il de' Iuedici, who appointed him chief Mathematician of his court,
gave him a home and handsome salary, and Protected him from the Jesuits'
iho dominated the papacy and had already threatened Galileo because
he championed the Copernican theory' To express his gratitude' Galileg
,ramed tie satellites ofJupiter, which he discovered in the first year of
his
service under Cosimo, thi Medicean stars' In Florence Galileo had the
leisure to pursue his studies and to write'
His aivocacy of the Copernican theory irked the Roman Inquisition'
andin1616hewascalledtoRo-".Histeachingsontheheliocentrictheory
were condemned by the Inquisition; he had to promise not to publish
any
more on this subjeci. In 1630 Pope Urban VIII did give him permission to
publish if he would make his book mathematical and not doctrinal' There-
,rporr, 1632, he published his classic Dialogo d.ci nassimi sisbmi (Dialogue
i,
on the Great World Systems). The Roman Inquisition summoned him
again in 1633 and under the threat of torture impelled him to recant
his
uiro"u"y of the heliocentric theory. He was again forbidden to publish
and required to live practically under house arrest' But he undertook to
328 THE MATHEMATTZATToN or scrENcE
write up his years of thought and work on the phenomena ofmotion and on
the strength of materials. The manuscript, entitled Discorsi e dimostrazioni
matemaliche intorno d due nuoae scienze (Discortrses and Mathematical Demon-
strations Concerning Two New Sciences, also referred to as Dialogues
Concerning Two New Sciences), was secretly transported to Holland and
published there in 1638. This is the classic in which Galileo presented his new
scientific method. He defended his actions with the words that he had never
"declined in piety and reverence for the Church and my own conscience.,,
Galileo was an extraordinary man in many fields. He was a keen
astronomical observer. He is often called the father of modern invention;
though he did not invent the telescope or " perplexive glasses,,, as Ben
Jonson called them, he was immediately able to construct one when he
heard of the idea. He was an independent inventor of the microscope, and
he designed the first pendulum clock. He also designed and made a compass
with scales that automatically yielded the results of numerical computations
so the user could read the scales and avoid having to do the calculations.
This device was so much in demand that he produced many for sale.
Galileo was the first important modern student of sound. He suggested
a wave theory of sound and began work on pitch, harmonics, and the
vibrations of strings. This work was continued by Mersenne and Newton
and became a major inspiration for mathematical work in the eighteenth
century.
Galileo's major writings, though concerned with scientific subjects, are
still regarded as literary masterpieces. His Sidereus .ly'zzcizs (Sidereal Messen-
ger) of 1610, in which he announced his astronomical observations and
declared himself in support of Copernican theory, was an immediate success,
and he was elected to the prestigious Academy of the LynxJike in Rome.
His two greatest classics, the Dialogue on the Gredt World Sgstems and Dialoguzs
Corceming Two New Sciences, are clear, direct, witty, yet profound. In both,
Galileo has one character present the current views, against which another
argues cleverly and tenaciously to show the fallacies and weaknesses of these
views and the strengths of the new ones.
In his philosophy of science Galileo broke sharply from the speculative
and mystical in favor of a mechanical and mathematical view of nature. He
also believed that scientific problems should not become enmeshed in and
beclouded by theological arguments. Indeed, one of his achievements in
science, though somewhat apart from the method we are about to examine,
is that he recognized clearly the domain of science and severed it sharply
from religious doctrines.,
Galileo, like Descartes, was certain that nature is mathematically de-
signed. His statement of 1610 is famous:
Philosophy [nature] is written in that great book which ever lies befdrc
our eyes-I mean the irniverse-but we cannot understand it if we do
GALILEO'S APPROACH I'O SCIENCE 329
not first learn the language and grasp the symbols in which it is written'
The book is written in the mathematical language, and the symbols are
triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without whose help it is
impossible to comprehend a single word of it; without which one wanders
in vain through a dark labYrinth.l
Nature is simple and orderly and its behavior is regular and necessary' It
acts in accordance with perfect and immutable mathematical laws. Divine
reason is the source of the rational in naturel God put into the world that
rigorous mathematical necessity that men reach only laboriously' Mathe-
matical knowledge is therefore not only absolute truth, but as sacrosanct as
any line of Scripture. In fact it is superior, for there is much disagreement
about the Scripiures, but there can be none about mathematical truths'
Another Joctrine, the atomism of the Greek Democritus, is clearer in
Galileo than in Descartes. Atomism presupposed empty space (which Des-
cartes did not accept) and individual, indestructible atoms' Change con-
sisted in the combination and separation of atoms. All qualitative varieties
in bodies were due to quantitative variety in number, size, shape, and
spatial arrangement of the atoms. The atom's chief properties were impene-
trability and indestructibility; these properties served to explain chemical
and physical phenomena. Galileo's espousal of atomism placed it in the
forefront of scientific doctrines.
Atomism led Galileo to the doctrine of primary and secondary qualities'
He says, "If ears, tongues, and noses were removed, I am of the opinion
that shape, quantity [size] and motion would remain, but there would be
an end of smells, tastes, and sounds, which abstracted from the living
creature, I take to be mere words." Thus in one swoop Galileo, like Des-
cartes, stripped away a thousand phenomena and qualities to concentrate
on matter and motion, properties that are mathematically describable' It is
perhaps not too surprising that in the century in which problems of motion
,r.." th" most prominent and serious, scientists should find motion to be a
fundamental physical phenomenon.
The concentration on matter and motion was only the first step in
Galileo's new approach to nature. His next thought, also voiced by Des-
cartes, was that any branch of science should be patterned on the model of
mathematics. This implies two essential steps. Mathematics starts udth
axioms-clear, self-evident truths-and from these proceeds by deductive
reasoning to establish new truths. Any branch of science, then, should start
with axioms or principles and then proceed deductively' Moreover, one
should extract from the axioms as many consequences as possible' This
thought, of course, goes back to Aristotle, who also aimed at deductive
structure in science with the mathematical model in mind'
However, Galileo departed radically from the Greeks, the medieval
l. OPcre,4, l7l.
33O TrrE MATHEMATIZATION OF SCIENCE
scientists, and even Descartes in his method of obtaining first principles. The
pre-Galileans and Descartes had believed that the mind supplied the basic
principles; it had but to think about any class of phenomena and it would
immediately recognize fundamental truths. This power of the mind was
clearly evidenced in mathematics. Axioms such as "equals added to equals
give equals " and " two points determine a line" suggested themselves im-
mediately in thinking about number or geometrical figures, and were in-
dubitable truths. So too had the Greeks found some physical principles
equally appealing. That all objects in the universe should have a natural
place was no more than fitting. The state of rest seemed clearly more natural
than the state of motion. It seemed indubitable, too, that force must be
applied to put and keep bodies in motion. To believe that the mind supplies
fundamental principles did not deny that observations might play a role in
obtaining these principles. But the observations merely evoked the correct
principlcs, just as the sight of a familiar face might call to mind facts about
that person.
The Greek and medieval scientists were so convinced that there were
a priori fundamental principles that when occasional observations did not
fit they invented special explanations to preserve the principles but still
account for the anomalies. These men, as Galileo put it, first decided how
the world should function and then fitted what they saw into their precon-
ceived principles.
Galileo decided that in physics, as opposed to mathematics, first
principlcs must come from experience and experimentation. The way to
obtain correct and basic principles is to pay attention to what nature says
rathcr than what the mind prefers. Nature, he argued, did not first make
men's brains and then arrange the world to be acceptable to human in-
tellects. To the mediwal thinkers who kept repeating Aristotle and debating
what he meant, Galileo addressed the criticism that knowledge comes from
observation and not from books, and that it was useless to debate about
Aristotle. He says, "When we have the decrees of nature, authority goes for
nothing.. . ." Of course some Renaissance thinkers and Galileo's contem-
porary Francis Bacon had also arrived at the conclusion that experimentation
wrx necessary; in this particular aspect of his new method, Galileo was not
ahead of all others. Yet the modernist Descartes did not grant the wisdom
of Galileo's reliance upon experimentation. The facts of the senses, Des-
cartes said, can only lead to delusion, but reason penetrates such delusions.
From the innate general principles supplied by the mind, we can deduce
particular phenomena of nature and understand them. Galileo did appre-
ciate that one may glean an incorrect principle from experimentation and
that as a consequence the deductions from it could be incorrect. Hence he
proposed the use of experiments to check the conclusions of his reasonings
as well as to acquire basic principles.
GALII.EO,S APPROACH TO SoIENCE 33I
Galileowasactuallyatransitionalfigureasfarasexperimentationis
concerned. He, and Isaac Newton fifty years later, believed that a
few key
or critical experiments would yield correct fundamental principles' More-
over, many of Gulil.o" so-called experiments were really thought-e:<peri-
ments; that is, he relied upon common experience to imagine what would
h.pp"r, if an experiment were performed' He then drew a conclusion as
as if he had actually Performed the ocperiment' When in the
"orriid"rrtly
i;rtogu, on the Great World systrms he describes the motion of a ball dropped
frorn ih" mast of a moving ship, he is asked by Simplicio, one of the charac-
ters, whether he had male an e:rperiment' Galileo replies, "No, and
I do
not need it, as without any experience I can confirm that it is so, because it
cannot be otherwise." He says in fact that he experimented rarely, and then
primarily to refute tlose who did not follow the mathematics' Though
'p"rformed
i\"*tor, some famous and ingenioqs experiments, he too says
that he used experiments to make his rcs,,lts physically intelligible and to
convince the common PeoPle.
The truth of the matter is that Galileo had some preconceptions about
nature, which made him confident that a few experiments would suffice'
He believed, for e>rample, that nature was simple' Hence when he considered
freely falling bodies, which fall with increasing velocity, he supposed that
the increase" in velocity is the same for each second of fall' This was the
simplest "truth." He believed also that nature is mathematicaUy designed'
h.rr". any mathematical law that seemed to fit even on the basis of
".ri
rather limited experimentation appeared to him to be correct'
For Galileo, as well as for Huygens and Newton, the deductive' mathe-
matical part of ihe scientific enterprise played a greater Part than the ex-
perimenial. Galileo was no less proud of the abundance of theorems that
ilo* f.o- a single principle than of the discovery of the principle itself. The
men who fashiot .a *od"t' science-Descartes, Galileo, Huygens' and
Newton (we can also include Copernicus and Kepler)-approached the study
of nature as mathematicians, in their general method and in their concrete
to
investigations. They were primarily speculative thinkers who expected
appreh"end broad, deep (but also simple), clear, and immutable mathe-
*uti"ut principles eithir ihrough intuition or through crucial observations
urrd and then to deduce new laws from these fundamental
"*p..i*.ots,
truths, entirely in the manner in which mathematics proper had constructed
its g"o-.try. The bulk of the activity was to be the deductive portion;
whole systems of thought were to be so derived'
What the great ihinkers of the seventeenth century envisaged as the
prop.. p.o""drrie for science did indeed prove to be the profitable course'
th" .utiorr.l search for laws of nature produced, by Newton's time' ex-
tremely valuable results on the basis of the slimmest observational and
ex-
perimental knowledge' The great scientific advances of the sixteenth and
332 TrrE MATHEMATTZATTON OF SCTENCE
seventeenth centuries were in astronomy, where observation offered little

that was new, and in mechanics, where the experimental results were hardly
starding and certainly not decisive, whereas the mathematical theory
attained comprehensiveness and perfection. And for the next two centuries
scientists produced deep and s\ileeping laws of nature on the basis of very
few, almost trivial, observations and experiments.
The expectation of Galileo, Huygens, and Newton that just a few
experiments would suffice can be readily understood. Because these men
were convinced that nature is mathematically designed, they saw no reason
why they could not proceed in scientific matters much as mathematicians
had proceeded in their domain. As John Flerman Randall says it Making
of tlu Modcrn Mind, " Science was born of a llaith in the mathematical inter-
pretation of nature.. . . "
Galileo did, however, obtain a few principles from experience; and in
this work also his approach was a radical departure from that of his prede-
cessors. He decided that one must penetrate to what is fundamental in
phenomena and start there. In Two Ncw Scicnces he says that it is not possible
to treat the infinite variety of weights, shapes, and velocities. He had ob-
served that the speeds with which dissimilar objects fall differ less in air than
in water. Ilence the thinner the medium, the less difference in speed of fall
among bodies. " Having observed this I came to the conclusion that in a
medium totally devoid of resistance all bodies would fall with the same
speed," What Galileo was doing here was to strip away the incidental or
minor effects in an effort to get at the major one.
Of course, actual bodies do fall in resisting media. What could Galileo
say about such motions? IIis answer was ". . . hence, in order to handle this
matter in a scientific way, it is necessary to cut loose from these difficulties
[air resistance, friction, etc.] and having discovered and demonstrated the
theorems in the case ofno resistance, to use them and apply them with such
limitations as experience will teach."
Having stripped away air resistance and friction, Galileo sought basic
laws for motion in a vacuum. Thus he not only contradicted Aristotle and
even Descartes by thinking of bodies moving in empty space, but did just
what the mathematician does in studying real figures. The mathematician
strips away molecular structure, color, and thickness of lines to get at some
basic properties and concentrates on these. So did Galileo penetrate to basic
physical factors. The mathematical method of abshaction is indeed a step
away from reality but, paradoxically, it leads back to reality with greater
power than if all the factors actually present are taken into account at once.
Thus far Galileo had formulated a number of methodological prin-
ciples, many of which were suggested by the approach mathematics had
employed in geometry. His next principle was to use mathematics itself,
GALTLEO'S APPROACTT TO SCIENCE 333
but in a special way. Unlike the Aristotelians and the late medieval scientists,
who had fastened upon qualities they regarded as fundamental and studied
the acquisition and loss of qualities or debated the meaning of the qualities,
Galileo proposed to seek quantitatiae axioms. This change is most important ;
we shall see the full significance of it later, but an elementary example may
be useful now. The Aristotelians said that a ball falls because it has weight,
and that it falls to the earth because every object seeks its natural place and
the natural place of heavy bodies is the center ofthe earth. These principles
are qualitative. Even Kepler's first law of motion, that the path of each
planet is an ellipse, is a qualitative statement. By contrast, let us consider
the statement that the speed (in feet per second) with which a ball falls is
32 times the number of seconds it has been falling, or in symbols, tt : 32t.
This is a quantitative statement about how a ball falls. Galileo intended to
seek such quantitative statements as his axioms, and he expected to deduce
new ones by mathematical means. These deductions would also give quanti-
tative knowledge. Moreover, as we have seen, mathematics was to be his
essential medium,
The decision to seek quantitative knowledge expressed in formulas
carried with it another radical decision, though first contact with it hardly
reveals its full significance. The Aristotelians believed that one of the tasks
ofscience was to explain why things happened; explanation meant unearth-
ing the causes of a phenomenon. The statement that a body falls because it
has weight gives the effective cause of the fall and the statement that it
seeks its natural place gives the final cause. But the quantitative statement
a : 32t, for whatever it may be worth, gives no explanation of why a ball
falls; it tells only how the speed changes with the time. In other words,
formulas do not explain ; they describe. The knowledge of nature Galileo
sought was descriptive. He says in Tuo Neu Sciences, "The cause of the ac-
celeration of the motion of falling bodies is not a necessary part of the in-
vestigation." More generally, he points out that he will investigate and
demonstrate some of the properties of motion without regard to what the
causes might be. Positive scientific inquiries were to be separated from
questions of ultimate causation, and speculation as to physical causes was to
be abandoned.
First reactions to this principle of Galileo are likely to be negative'
Description of phenomena in terms of formulas hardly seems to be more
than a first step. It would seem that the true function of science had really
been grasped by the Aristotelians, namely, to explain why phenomena
happened. Even Descartes protested Galileo's decision to seek descriptive
formulas. He said, " Everything that Galileo says about bodies falling in
empty space is built without foundation: he ought first to have determined
the nature of weight." Further, said Descartes, Galileo should reflect on
334 THE MATHEMATTZATTON OF SCTENCE
ultimate reasons. But we shall see clearly after a few chapters that Galileo's
decision to aim for description was the deepest and most fruitful idea that
anyone has had about scientific methodology.
Whereas the Aristotelians had talked in terms of qualities such as
fluidity, rigidity, essences, natural places, natural and violent motion, and
potentiality, Galileo chose an entirely new set of concepts, which, moreover,
were measurable, so that their measures could be related by formulas.
Some of them are : distance, time, speed, acceleration, force, mass, and
weight. These concepts are too familiar to surprise us. But in Galileo's time
they were radical choices, at least as fundamental conceptsl and these are
the ones that proved most instrumental in the task of understanding and
mastering nature.
We have described the essential features of Galileo's program. Some of
the ideas in it had been espoused by others; some were entirely original with
him. But what establishes Galileo's greatness is that he saw so clearly what
was u,rong or deficient in the current scientific eflorts, shed completely the
older ways, and formulated the new procedures so clearly. Moreover, in
applying them to problems of motion he not only exemplified the method
but succeeded in obtaining brilliant results-in other words, he showed that
it worked. The unity of his work, the clarity of his thoughts and expressions,
and the force ofhis argumentation influenced almost all ofhis contemporaries
and successors. More than any other man, Galileo is the founder of the
methodology of modern science, He was fully conscious of what he had
accomplished (see the chapter legend); so were others. The philosopher
Hobbes said of Galileo, " He has been tlte first to open to us the door to the
whole realm of physics."
We cannot pursue the history of the metJrodology of science. However,
since mathematics became so important in this methodology and profited
so much from its adoption, we should note how completely Galileo's pro-
gram was accepted by giants such as Newton. He asserts that experiments
are needed to furnish basic laws. Newton is also clear that the function of
science, after having obtained some basic principles, is to deduce new facts
from these principles. In the preface to his Pfiuipia, he says:
Since the ancients (as we are told by Pappus) esteemed the science of
mechanics of greatest importance in the investigation of natural things,
and the moderns, rejecting substantial forms and occult qualities, have
endeavored to subject the phenomena of nature to the laws of mathe-
matics, I have in this treatise cultivated mathematics as far as it relates
to philosophy [science] . . . and therefore I offer this work as the mathe-
matical principles of philosophy, for the whole burden in philosophy
sccrns to consist in this-frorn the phcnornena of motions to investigate
the forces of nature, and then from these forces to demonstrate the other
phenomena.. , .
THE FUNCTION CONCEPT 335
Of course, mathematical principles, to Newton as to Galileo, were

quantitative principles. He says in tbe Principia that his purpose is to dis-
cover and set forth the exact manner in which "all things had been ordered
in measure, number and weight." Newton had good reason to emphasize
quantitative mathematical laws, as opposed to physical explanation, because
th" physical concePt in his celestial mechanics was the force of
".rrt..l whose action could not be explained at all in physical terms'
gravitation,
in lieu of explanation Newton had a quantitative formulation of how gravity
acted that was significant and usable. And this is why he says, at the begin-
ning of the Principi.a, " For I here design only to give a mathematical notion
of thes" forces, without considering their physical causes and seats'" Toward
the end of the book he repeats this thought:
But our purpose is only to trace out the quantity and properties of this
force from the phenomena, and to apply what we discover in some simple
cases as principles, by which, in a mathematical way, we may estimate
the effects thereof in more involved cases . . We said, in a matlumatical
'
uay fitalics Newton's], to avoid all questions about the nature or quality
of this force, which we would not be understood to determine by any
hypothesis. . . "
The abandonment of physical mechanism in favor of mathematical
description shocked even Sreat scientists. Huygens regarded the idea of
gravitation as "absurd," because its action through empty space Precluded
any mechanism. He expressed surprise that Newton should have taken the
trouble to make such a number of laborious calculations with no foundation
but the mathematical principle of gravitation. Leibniz attacked gravitation
as an incorporeal and inexplicable power; John Bernoulli (James's brother)
denounced it as " revolting to minds accustomed to receiving no princiPle
in physics save those which are incontestable and evident'" But this reliance
on mathematical description even where physical understanding was com-
pletely lacking made possible Newton's artazing contributions, to say
nothing of subsequent developments.
Because science became heavily dependent upon-almost subordinate
to-mathematics, it was the scientists who extended the domain and
techniques of mathematics; and the multiplicity of problems provided by
science gave mathematicians numerous and weighty directions for creative
work.
4. The Function ConcePt

The first mathematical gain from scientific investigations conducted in
accordance with Galileo's Program came from the study of motion' This
problem engrossed the scientists and mathematicians of the seventeenth
century. It is easy to see why. Though Kepler's astronomy was accepted
336 THE MATHEMATIZATION OF SCIENCE
early in the seventeenth century, especially after Galileo's observations

supplied additional evidence for a heliocentric theory, Kepler's law of
elliptical motion is only approximately correct, though it would be exact if
there were just the sun and one planet in the heavens. The ideas that the
other planets disturb the elliptical motion ol any one planet and that the
sun disturbs the elliptical motion of the moon around the earth were al-
ready being considered I in fact, the notion of a gravitational force acting
between any two bodies was suggested by Kepler, among others. Hence the
problem of improving the calculation of the planets' positions was open.
Moreover, Kepler had obtained his laws essentially by fitting curves to
astronomical data, with no explanation in terms of fundamental laws of
motion of why the planets moved in elliptical paths. The basic problem of
deriving Kepler's laws from principles of motion posed a clear challenge.
The improvement ol astronomical theory also had a practical objective.
In their search for raw materials and trade, the Europeans had undertaken
large-scale navigation that involved sailing long distances out of sight of
land, Mariners therefore needed accurate methods of determining latitude
and longitude. The determination of latitude can be made by direct obser-
vation of the sun or the stars, but determination of longitude is far more
difficult. In the sixteenth century the methods of doing it were so inaccurate
that navigators were often in error as much as 500 miles. After about 1514,
the direction of the moon relative to the stars was used to determine longi-
tude. These directions, as seen from some standard place at various times,
were tabulated. A navigator would determine the direction of the moon,
which was not affected much by his being in a different location, and deter-
mine his local time by using, for example, the directions of the stars. Directly
from the tables or by interpolation he could find the time at the standard
location when the moon had the measured direction and so compute the
difference in time between his position and the standard one. Each hour of
difference means a l5-degree difference in longitude. This method, howe'zer,
was not accurate. Because the ships of those times were constantly heaving,
it was difficult to obtain the moon's direction accuratelyl but, because the
moon does not move much relative to the stars in a few hours, the direction
of the moon had to be rather precisely determined' A mistake of one minute
of angle means an error ol half a degree of longitude; but even a measure
accurate to within one minute was far beyond the capabilities of those times.
Though other methods of determining longitude were suggested and tried,
better knowledge of the moon's path to extend and improve the tables
seemed indispensable and many scientists, including Newton, worked on
the problem. Even in Newton's time the knowledge of the moon's position
was so inaccurate that use of the tables led to errors of as much as I00 rniles
in determining position at sea.
The governments of Europe were very much concerned, because
TIIE FUNCTION CONCEPT 337
shipping losses were considerable. In 1675 King Charles II of England set

up the Royal Observatory at Greenwich to obtain better observations on
the moon's motion and to serve as a fixed station for longitude. In 1712 the
British government established a Commission for the Discovery of Longitude
and offered rewards ofup to d20,000 for ideas on how to measure longitude.
The problem of explaining terrestrial motions also faced seventeenth-
century scientists. Under the heliocentric theory the earth was both rotating
and revolving around the sun. Why then should objects stay with the earth ?
Why should dropped objects fall to earth if it was no longer the center of the
universe ? Moreover, all motions, projectile motion for example, seemed to
take place as though the earth were at rest. These questions engaged the
attention of many men, including Cardan, Tartaglia, Galileo, and Newton'
The paths of projectiles, their ranges, the heights they could reach, and the
effect of muzzle velocity on height and range were basic questions and the
princes then, like nations now, spent great sums on the solutions' New
principles of motion were needed to account for these terrestrial phenom-
ena; and it occurred to the scientists that, since the universe was believed
to be constructed according to one master plan, the same principles that
explained terrestrial motions would also account for heavenly motions'
From the study of the various problems of motion there emerged the
specific problem of designing more accurate methods of measuring time'
Mechanical clocks, which had been in use since 1348, were not very accurate'
The Flemish cartographer Gemma Frisius ( l50B-55) had suggested the use
of a clock to determine longitude' A ship could carry a clock set to the time
of a place of known longitude; since the determination of Iocal time by the
sun's position, for example, was relatively simple, the navigator need merely
note the difference in time and translate this at once into the difference in
Iongitude. But no durable, accurate, seaworthy clocla were available even
by 1600.
The motion of a pendulum seemed to provide the basic mechanism for
measuring time. Galileo had observed that the time for one complete oscilla-
tion of a pendulum was constant and ostensibly independent of the ampli-
tude of the swing. He prepared the design of a pendulum clock and had his
son construct one; but it was Robert Hooke and Huygens who did the basic
work on the pendulum. Though the pendulum clock was unsuitable for a
ship (an accuracy of two or three seconds a day was needed for the purpose
of iongitude-reckoning, and pendulums were too much affected by ship's
motion), it proved immensely valuable in scientific work, as well as for
timekeeping in homes and business. A clock appropriate for navigation was
finally designed by John Harrison (1693-1776) in 176l and belan to be
used by the end of the eighteenth century. Because a Proper clock was not
available earlier, accurate determination of the motion of the moon was
still the chief scientific problem in that century.
338 rrrE MATTTEMATTZATTON OF SCTENCE
From the study of motion mathematics derived a fundamental concept

that was central to practically all of the work for the next two hundred years
concept of a function or a relation between variables. One finds this
-the
notion almost throughout Galileo's Tuo Neu Scimces, the book in which he
founded modern mechanics. Galileo expresses his functional relationships in
words and in the language of proportion. Thus in his work on the strength
of materials, he has occasion to state, "The areas of two cylinders of equal
volumes, neglecting the bases, bear to each other a ratio which is the square
root of the ratio of their lengths." Again, "The volumes of right cylinders
having equal curved surfaces are inversely proportional to their altitudes."
In his work on motion he states, for example, "The spaces described by a
body falling from rest with a uniformly accelerated motion are to each other
as the squares of the time intervals employed in traversing these distances."
"The times of descent along inclined planes of the same height, but of
different slopes, are to each other as the lengths of these planes." The
language shows clearly that he is dealing with variables and functions; it
was but a short step to write these statements in symbolic form, Since the
symbolism of algebra was being extended at this time, Galileo's statement
on the spaces described by a falling body soon was written as s : &r2andhis
s'tatement on times of descent as t : kl.
Most of the functions introduced during the seventeenth century were
first studied as curves, before the function concept was fully recognized.
This was true, for example, of the elementary transcendental functions such
as log x, sin *, and a'. Thus Evangelista Torricelli (1608-47), a pupil of
Galileo, in a letter of 1644 described his research on the curve we would
represent by y : *-"* with.r > 0 (the manuscript in which he wrote up
this research was not edited until 1900). The curve was suggested to Torri-
celli by the current work on logarithms. Descartes encountered the same
curve in 1639 but did not speak of its connection with logarithms. The sine
curve entered mathematics as the companion curve to the cycloid in Rober-
val's work on the cycloid (Chap. 17, sec. 2) and appears graphed for two
periods in Wallis's Mechanica (1670). Of course the tabular values of the
trigonometric and logarithmic functions were, by this time, known with
great precision.
It is also relevant that old and new curves were introduced by means
of motions. In Greek times, a few curves, such as the quadratrix and the
Archimedean spiral, were defined in terms of motion, but in that period
such curves were outside the pale of legitimate mathematics. The attitude
was quite different in the seventeenth century. Mersenne in 1615 defined
the cycloid (which had been known earlier) as the locus of a point on a
wheel that rolls along the ground. Galileo, who had shown that the path of
a projectile shot up into the air at an angle to the ground is a parabola,
regarded the curve as t}le locus of a moving point.
THE Ft NCTTON CONCEPT 339
With Roberval,,Barrow, and Newton the concept of a curve as the path

of a moving point attains explicit recognition and acceptance. Newton says
in Quadrature of Curues (written in 1676), " I consider mathematical quantities
in this place not as consisting of very small parts, but as described by a con-
tinued motion, Lines [curves] are described, and thereby generated, not by
the apposition of parts but by the continued motion of points'. ' . These
geneses really take place in the nature of things, and are daily seen in the
motion of bodies."
Gradually the terms and symbolism for the various types of functions
represented by these curves were introduced. There were many subtle
dfficulties that were hardly recognized. For example, the use of functions of
the form ax, wit}r x taking on positive and negative integral and fractional
values, became common in the seventeenth century. It was assumed (until
the nineteenth century, when irrational numbers were first defined) that
the function was also defined for irrational valuei ofr, so that no one ques-
tioned an expression of the form 2Jd. The implicit understanding \ /as that
such a value was intermediate between that obtained for any two rational
exponents above and below {2.
Descartes's distinction between geometric and mechanical curves
(Chap. 15, sec. 4) gave rise to the distinction between algebraic and tran-
scendental functions. Fortunately his contemporaries ignored his banishment
of what he called mechanical curves. Through quadratures, the summation
of series, and other operations that entered with the calculus, many types of
transcendental functions arose and were studied. The distinction between
algebraic and transcendental functions was clearly made by James Gregory
in 1667, when he sought to show that the area ofa circular sector could not
be an algebriac function of the radius and the chord. Leibniz showed that
sin x cannot be an algebraic function of* and incidentally proved the result
sought by Gregory.2 The full understanding and use of the transcendental
functions came gradually.
The most explicit definition of the function concePt in the seventeenth
century was given by James Gregory in his vera circuli et Hyperbolae Quadratura
(1667). He defined a function as a quantity obtained from other quantities
by a succession ofalgebraic operations or by any other operation imaginable'
By the last phrase he meant' as he explains, that it is necessary to add to the
five operations of algebra a sixth operation, which he defines as passage to
the limit. (Gregory, as we shall see in Chapter I 7, was concerned with
quadrature problems.) Gregory's concept of function was lost sight of; but
in it would soon have proved too narrow, because the series
^rry "ase, of functions became widely used.
represeritation
From the very beginning of his work on the calculus, that is from 1665
2. Math. Schriften' 5,97-98,

34O TrrE MATHEMATIZATTON OF SCTENCE
on, Newton used the term "fluent" to represent any relationship between
variables. In a manuscript of 1673 Leibniz used the word "function" to
mean any quantity varying from point to point of a curve-for example,
the length of the tangent, the normal, the subtangent, and the ordinate.
The curve itself was said to be given by an equation. Leibniz also introduced
the words "constant," "variable," and "parameter," the latter used in
connection with a family of curves.s In working with functionsJohn Bernoulli
spoke from 1697 on of a quantity formed, in any manner whatever, of
variables and of constants;a by " any manner" he meant to cover algebraic
and transcendental expressions. He adopted Leibniz's phrase "function of
x" for this quantity in 1698. In his Historia (1714), Leibniz used the word
"function" to mean quantities that depend on a variable.
As to notation, John Bernoulli wrote X or f for a general function of
x, though in 17lB he changed to /r. Leibniz approved of this, but proposed
also xr and x2 for functions of r, the superscript to be used when several
functions were involved. The notation f(x) was introduced by Euler in
L734.6 The function concept immediately became central in the work on
the calculus. We shall see later how the concept was extended.
Bi.bliograplry
Bell, A. E.: Christian Huygens and the Deuelopmznt of Science in the Seuenteenth Century,
Edward Arnold, 1947.
Burtt, A. E.: Thc Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Phgsital Science,2nd ed., Rout-
ledge and Kegan Paul, 1932, Chaps. l-7.
Butterfield, Herbert: The Origins of Modtrn Sci.ence, Macmillan, 1951, Chaps. 4-7.
Cohen, I. Bernard: The Birth of a New Prtysics, Doubleday, 1960.
Coolidge, J. L.: The Matlumatics of Great Amateurs, Dover (reprint), 1963, pp.
tt9-27.
Crombie, A. C.: Augusti.ne to Galileo, Falcon Press, 1952, Chap. 6'
Dampier-Whetham, W. C. D.: A History of Science and lts Relations with PhilosoQhy
and Religi.on, Cambridge University Press, 1929, Chap. 3.
Dijksterhuis, E, J.: The Mechani.zation of the World Pi.cture, Oxford University Press,
1961.
Drabkin, I. E., and Stillman Drake: Gali.leo Galilei: On Motion and, Meehanics,
University of Wisconsin Press, 1960.
Drake, Stillman: Discoaeries and Opinions of Gali.leo, Doubleday, 1957.
Galilei, Galileo: Opere,20 vols., 1890-1909, reprinted by G. Barbera, 1964-66.
Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, Dovet (reprint), 1952.
Hall, A. R.: The Scientfic Reaoluti.on, Longmans Green, 1954, Chaps. l-8.
From Galileo to Newton, Collins, 1963, Chaps. 1-5.
3.
-: Math. Schriften, 5,266-69.
4. Mim de l'Acad des Sri., Paris, 1718, 100 ff. = Olera,2,235-65, p. 241 in particular.
5. Comm. Acad. Sci. Petro!.,7, 173+135, 184-200, pub. 1740 = Ofuera, (l),22,57-75.
34t
Huygens, C.: (Euares comphtes,22 vols., M. Nyhofl 1888-1950.
Newton, I.: Mathematical hinciphs of Natural Philosoplry, University of California
Press, 1946.
Randall, John H., jr,z Making of tlu Modnn Mind, rev. ed., Houghton Miffiin,
1940, Chap. 10.
Scott, J. E.: The Scientific Work of Reni Descartes' Taylor and Francis, 1952, Chaps.
l0-12.
Smith, Preservedz A Hi.story of Modzrn Culture, Henry Holt, 1930, Vol. I' Chaps. 3,
6, and 7.
Strong, Edward Yl.t Procedures and Metaphysi.cs, University of California Press, 1936,
Chaps. 5-8.
Whitehead, Alfred North: Science and. the Modern World, Cambridge University
Press, 1926, Chap. 3.
Wolt Abraham: A History of Science, Technology and Philosophg in tlu 16th and 17th
Ccnturies,2nd ed., George Allen and lJnwin, 1950, Chap' 3.
r7
The Creation of the Calculus
Who, by a vigor of mind almost divine, the motions and
figures of the planets, the paths of comets, and the tides of
thc seas first demonstrated. xrwrox's EPrrAPr{
l. The Motiaationfor the Calculus

Following hard on the adoption of the function concept came the calculus,
which, next to Euclidean geometry, is the greatest creation in all of mathe-
matics. Though it was to some extent the answer to problems already tackled
by the Greeks, the calculus was created primarily to treat the major scientific
problems of the seventeenth century.
There were four major types of problems. The first was : Given the
formula for the distance a body covers as a function of the time, to find the
velocity and acceleration at any instant; and, conversely, given the formula
describing the acceleration of a body as a function of the time, to find the
velocity and the distance traveled. This problem arose directly in the study
of motion and the difficulty it posed was that the velocities and the accelera-
tion of concern to the seventeenth century varied from instant to instant. In
calculating an instantaneous velocity, for example, one cannot, as one can in
the case of average velocity, divide the distance traveled by the time of
travel, because at a given instant both the distance traveled and time are
zero, and. 0/0 is meaningless. Nevertheless, it was clear on physical grounds
that moving objects do have a velocity at each instant of their travel. The
inverse problem of finding the distance covered, knowing the formula for
velocity, involves the corresponding difficulty; one cannot multiply the
velocity at any one instant by the time of travel to obtain the distance
traveled because the velocity varies from instant to instant.
The second type of problem was to find the tangent to a curve. fnterest
in this problem stemmed from more than one source; it was a problem of
pure geometry, and it was of great importance for scientific applications.
Optics, as we know, was one of the major scientific pursuits of the seven-
teenth century; the design oflenses was ofdirect interest to Fermat, Descartes,
Huygens, and Newton. To study the passage of light through a lens, one
342
TT{E MOTTVATION TOR TIIE CALCULUS 343
Figure 17,I
must knou/ the angle at which the ray strikes the lens in order to apply the
law ofrefraction. The significant angle is that between the ray and the normal
to the curve (Fig. 17.1), the normal being the perpendicular to the tangent.
Hence the problem was to find either the normal or the tangent. Another
scientific problem involving the tangent to a curve arose in the study of
motion. The direction of motion of a moving body at any point of its path is
the direction of the tangent to the path.
Actually, even the very meaning of " tangent " was open. For the conic
sections the definition of a tangent as a line touching a curve at only one
point and lying on one side of the curve sufficed; this definition was used
by the Greeks. But it was inadequate for the more complicated curves already
in use in the seventeenth century.
The third problem was that of finding the maximum or minimum value
of a function. When a cannonball is shot from a cannon, the distance it will
travel horizontally-the range-depends on the angle at which the cannon
is inclined to the ground. One " practical " problem was to find the angle
that would maximize the range. Early in the seventeenth century, Galileo
determined that (in a vacuum) the maximum range is obtained for an angle
offire of45'; he also obtained the maximum heights reached by projectiles
fired at various angles to the ground. The study of the motion of the planets
also involved maxima and minima problems, such as finding the greatest
and least distances of a planet from the sun,
The fourth problem was finding the lengths of curves, for example, the
distance covered by a planet in a given period of time; the areas bounded by
curves; volumes bounded by surfaces; centers of gravity of bodies ; and the
gravitational attraction that an extendtd body, a planet for example, exerts
on another body. The Greeks had used the method ofexhaustion to find some
areas and volumes. Despite the fact that they used it for relatively simple
areas and volumes, they had to apply much ingenuity, because the method
lacked generality. Nor did they often come up with numerical answers'
Interest in finding lengths, areas, volumes, and centers ofgravity was revived
when the work of Archimedes became known in Europe. The method of
exhaustion was first modified gradually, and then radically by the invention
of the calculus.
344 THE CREATION OF THE CALCULUS
2. Early Seaenteenth-Century Work on the Calculus

The problems of the calculus were tackled by at least a dozen of the greatest
mathematicians of the seventeenth century and by several dozen minor ones.
All of their contributions were crowned by the achievements of Newton and
Leibniz. Here we shall be able to note only the principal contributions of
the precursors of these two masters.
The problem ofcalculating the instantaneous velocity from a knowledge
ofthe distance traveled as a function ofthe time, and its converse, were soon
seen to be special cases ofcalculating the instantaneous rate ofchange ofone
variable with respect to another and its converse. The first significant
treatment of general rate problems is due to Newton; we shall examine it
Iater.
Several methods were advanced to find the tangent to a curve. In his
Traiti which dates from 1634 (though not published until
des indiaisibles,
1693), Gilles Persone de Roberval (1602-7 5) generalized a method Archi-
medes had used to find the tangent at any point on his spiral. Like Archimedes,
Roberval thought ofa curve as the Iocus ofa point moving under the action
of two velocities. Thus a projectile shot from a cannon is acted on by a
horizontal velocity, PQ in Figure 17 .2, and a vertical velocity, p.R. The
resultant of these two velocities is the diagonal of the rectangle formed on
PQ and, PR. Roberval took the line of this diagonal to be the tangent at p.
As Torricelli pointed out, Roberval's method used a principle already
asserted by Galileo, namely, that the horizontal and vertical velocities acted
independently of each other. Torricelli himself applied Roberval's method to
obtain tangents to curves whose equations we now write as y : ,6".
While the notion of a tangent as a line having the direction of the
resultant velocity was more complicated than the Greek definition of a line
touching a curve, this newer concept applied to many curves for which the
older one failed. It was also valuable because it linked pure geometry and
dynamics, which before Galileo's work had been regarded as essentially
distinct. On the other hand, this notion of a tangent was objectionable on
mathematical grounds, because it based the definition oftangent on physical
concepts. Many curves arose in situations having nothing to do with motion
and the definition of tangent was accordingly inapplicable. Hence other
methods of finding tangents gained favor.
Fermat's method, which he had devised by 1629 and which is found in
his 1637 manuscript Methodus ad Disquirendam Maximam et Minimam (Method,
of Finding Maxima and Minima),l is in substance the present method. Let
called the subtangent. Fermat's plan is to find the length of 7Q, from which
one knows the position of Tand can then draw TP.
l. (Euures,l, l3$-?9;3, 12l-56.

EARLY SEVENTEENTH.CENTURY WORK ON THE CALCULUS 345
Figure 17.2
Let QQ, be an increment in IQ of amount E. Since triangle TQP is

similar to triangle PrR Tr,
TQ:PQ: E:T,R.
But, Fermat says, TrrR is almost P1.R; therefore,
TQ:PQ:Ez(PtQt-QP).
Calling PQ,-f (*) in our modern notation, we have
TQ:f@): E:lf(x + E) -f(x)1.
Hence
tu: fi-aE,J@)
n1 _f@)'
For the;t(x) Fermat treated, it was immediately possible to divide numerator
and denominator of the above fraction by E. He then set E : 0 (he says,
remove the E term) and so obtained ZQ.
Fermat applied his method of tangents to many difficult problems'
The method has ttre Jorm of the now-standard method of the differential
calculus, though it begs entirely the difficult theory of limits.
To Descartes the problem of finding a tangent to a curve was important
because it enables one to obtain properties of curves-for example, the angle
of intersection of two curves. FIe says, "This is the most useful, and the most
general problem, not only that I know, but even that I have any desire to
know in geometry." He gave his method in the second book of Zo Giomitrie'
It was purely algebraic and did not involve any concePt of limit, whereas
Fermat's did, if rigorously formulated. However, Descartes's method was
useful only for curves whose equations were of the form y : f(x), where/('r)
was a simple polynomial. Though Fermat's method was general, Descartes
thought his own method was better; he criticized Fermat's, which admittedly
was not clear as presented then, and tried to interpret it in terms of his own
ideas. Fermat in turn claimed his method was superior and saw advantages
in his use of the little increments E.
Isaac Barrow (1630-77) also gave a method of finding tangents to
curves. Barrow was a professor of mathematics at Cambridge University.
Well versed in Greek and Arabic, he was able to translate some of Euclid's
works and to improve a number of other translations of the writings of Euclid,
Apollonius, Archimedes, and Theodosius. His chief work, the Lectiones
Geometritac (1669), is one of the great contributions to the calculus. In it he
used geometrical methods, " freed," as he put it, " from the loathsome burdens
of calculation." In 1669 Barrow resigned his professorship in favor of Newton
and turned to theological studies.
Barrow's geometrical method is quite involved and makes use of
auxiliary curves. However, one feature is worth noting because it illustrates
the thinking of the time; it is the use of what is called the differential, or
characteristic, triangle. He starts with the triangle P,RQ (Fig. 17.4), which
results from the increment Pft, and uses the fact that this triangle is similar
to triangle PMN to assert that the slope QRIPR of the tangent is equal to
PMIMN. However, Barrow says, when the arc PP' is sufficiently small we
may safely identi$ it with the segment PQ of the tangent at P. The triangle
PRP' (Fig. 17.5), in which PP'is regarded both as an arc of the curve and as
part of the tangent, is the characteristic triangle. It had been used much
earlier by Pascal, in connection with finding areas, and by others before him.
In Lecture I0 of the Lectiones, Barrow does resort to calculation to find
the tangent to a curve. Here the method is essentially the same as Fermat's.
He uses the equation of the curve, say yz : px, arrd replaces x by x ! e
and,ybyy*a.Then
92+2ag1a2:px*pe.
EARLY SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY WORK ON THE CALCULUS 347
He subtracts ys : Px and obtains

2ag*a2:Pe.
Then he discards higher powers ofa and a (where Present), which amounts
to replacing PEP' of Figure 17.4 by PEP' of Figure 17.5, and concludes
that
!:p.
e2y
Now he argues that alc -- PMINM, so that
ffiI :p.
PM
2u
Since PM is y, he has calculated NM, the subtangent, and knows the

position of JV.
The work on the third class of problems, finding the maxima and
minima of functions, may be said to begin with an observation by Kepler'
He was interested in the shape of casks for wine; in his Stueomefiia Doliorum
(1615) he showed that, of all right parallelepipeds inscribed in a sphere and
having square bases, the cube is the largest. His method was to calculate the
volumes for particular choices of dimensions. This in itselfwas not significant;
but he noted that as the maximum volume was approached, the change in
volume for a fixed change in dimensions grew smaller and smaller.
Fermat in his Methodus ad Disquirendam gave his method, which he
illustrated with the following example: Given a straight line (segment), it is
required to find a point on it such that the rectangle contained by the two
segments of the line is a maximum. He calls the whole segment B and lets
one part of it be 24. Then the rectangle is AB - 12. He now replaces ,r{ by
A + E. The other part is then B - (A * E), and the rectangle becomes
(A + E)(B - A - E).He equates the two areas because, he argues, at a
maximum .the two function values-that is, the two areas-should be equal'
Thus
AB + EB _ A2 _ 2AE _ E2 __ AB _ A2.
By subtracting common terms from the two sides and dividing by E, he gets
B:24+E.
He then sets E : 0 (he says, discard the E term) and gets B : 2A' Thus
the rectangle is a square.
The method, Fermat says, is quite general; he describes it thus: If ,4
is the independent variable, and, rf A is increased to A + E, then when E
becomes indefinitely small and when the function is passing through a
maximum or minimum, the two values of the function will be equal. These
348 THE CREATTON OF THE CALCULUS
two values are equated; the equation is divided by.E; and .O is now made to
vanish, so that from the resulting equation the value of A that makes the
function a maximum or minimum can be determined, The method is
essentially the one he used to find the tangent to a curve. However, the basic
fact there is a similarity of two uiangles; here it is the equality of two
function values. Fermat did not see the need tojustify introducing a non-zero
E and then, after dividing by .8, setting E : 0.2
The seventeenth-century work on finding areas, volumes, centers of
gravity, and lengths of curves begins with Kepler, who is said to have been
attracted to the volume problem because he noted the inaccuracy of methods
used by wine dealers to find the volumes of kegs. This work (in Stereometria
Doliorum) is crude by modern standards. For example, the area of a circle is
to him the area of an infinite number of triangles, each with a vertex at the
center and a base on the circumference. Then from the formula for the area
of a regular inscribed polygon, 1/2 the perimeter times the apothem, he
obtained the area of the circle. In an analogous manner he regarded the
volume of a sphere as the sum of the volumes of small cones with vertices at
the center of the sphere and bases on its surface. He then proceeded to show
that the volume of the sphere is l/3 the radius times the surface. The cone
he regarded as a sum of very thin circular discs and was able thereby to
compute its volume. Stimulated by Archimedes' Spheroids and Conoids, he
generated new figures by rotation of areas and calculated the volumes. Thus
he rotated the segment of a circle cut out by a chord around the chord and
found the volume.
The identification of curvilinear areas and volumes with the sum of an
infinite number of infinitesimal elements of the same dimension is the essence
of Kepler's method. That the circle could be regarded as the sum of an
infinite number of triangles was in his mind justified by the principle of
continuity (Chap. 14, sec. 5). He saw no difference in kind between the two
figures. For the same reason a line and an infinitesimal area were really the
samel and he did, in some problems, regard an area as a sum of lines.
ln Tu:o Neu.t Sciences Galileo conceives of areas in a manner similar to
Kepler's; in treating the problem of uniformly accelerated motion, he gives
an argument to show that the area under the time-velocity curve is the
distance. Suppose an object moves with varying velocity a : 32t, represented
by the straight line in Figure 17.6; then the distance covered in time Ol is
the area OAB. Galileo arrived at this conclusion by regarding A'B' , say, as
a typical velocity at some instant and also as the infinitesimal distance
covered (as it would be if multiplied by a very small element of time), then
arguing that the area OAB, which is made up of lines l'8', must therefore be
2. For the equations that precede his setting E : 0, Fermat used the term adacqualitas,
which Carl B. Boyer in Thc Concepts of the Calculus, p. 156, has aPtly translated as " pseudo-
equality."
Figure 17.7
the total distance. Since lB is 32I and OAis t, the area of OAB is 16'2' The
reasoning is of course unclear. It was supported in Galileo's mind by
philosoptical considerations that amount to regarding the area OAB as rnade
r-,p of un infinite number of indivisible units such as A'B'' He spent
much
tiie on the problem of the structure of continuous magnitudes such as line
segments and areas but did not resolve it.
Bonaventura Cavalieri (1598-1647), a pupil of Galileo and professor in
a lyceum in Bologna, was influenced by Kepler and Galileo and urged by
the latter to look into problems of the calculus' Cavalieri developed the
thoughts of Galileo and others on indivisibles into a geometrical method and
p.,blistred a work on the subject, Geometria Indiuisibitibus Continuorum Notta
quadam Ratione Promota (Geometty Advanced by a thus far Unknown
Method'
indivisibles of Continua, 1635). He regards an area as made up of an in-
definite number of equidistant parallel line segments and a volume as com-
posed of an indefinite-number oi parallel plane areas; these elements he calls
ih" i.rdi.riribt.s of area and volume, respectively' Cavalieri recognizes that
the number of indivisibles making up an atea or volume must be indefinitely
large but do., ,roi try to elaborate on this' Roughly speaking' the indivisi-
biltists held, as Cavalieri put it in his Exercitationes Geometricae Sex (1647),
that a line is made up of points as a string is of beads; a plane is made up of
lines as a cloth is of threads; and a solid is made up of plane areas as a book
is made up of pages. However, they allowed for an infinite number of the
constituent elements.
Cavalieri's method or principle is illustrated by the following proposition'
which ofcourse can be proved in other ways' To show that the parallelogram
ABCD (Fig. 17.7) has twice the area of either triangle ABD or B9?'h:
..gr"d ihit when GD : BE, then GH : FE' Hence triangles ABD ar:.d
BdD are made up of an equal number of equal lines, such as GH and EF'
and therefore must have equal areas.
The same principle is incorporated in the proposition now taught in
solid geometry books ard known as Cavalieri's Theorem' The
principle says
that iitwo solids have equal altitudes and if sections made by planes parallel
350
Figurc 17.8
to the bases and at equal distances from them always have a given ratio, the
volumes of the two solids have this given ratio to each other. Using essentially
this principle, Cavalieri proved that the volume ofa cone is l/3 that ofthe
circumscribed cylinder. Likewise he treated the area under two curves, say
y : l@) and y : g(.r) in our notation, and over the same range of .r-values;
considering the areas as the sums ofordinates, if the ordinates ofone are in a
constant ratio to those of the other, then, says Cavalieri, the areas are in the
same ratio. He showed by his methods in Centuria di aarii problemi (1639) that,
in our notation,
fd -n+ 1,
Jo*"tu:;71
for positive integral values of z up to 9. However, his method was entirely
geometrical. He was successful in obtaining correct results because he
applied his principle to calculate ratios of areas and volumes where the
ratio of the indivisibles making up the respective areas and volumes was
constant.
Cavalieri's indivisibles were criticized by contemporaries, and Cavalieri
attempted to answer them; but he had no rigorous justification. At times he
claimed his method was just a pragmatic device to avoid the method of
exhaustion. Despite criticism of the method, it was intensively employed by
many mathematicians. Others, such as Fermat, Pascal, and Roberval, used
the method and even the language, sum of ordinates, but thought of area
as a sum of infinitely small rectangles rather than as a sum of lines.
In 1634 Roberval, who says he studied the " divine Archimedes," used
essentially the method of indivisibles to find the area under one arch of the
cycloid, a problem Mersenne called to his attention in 1629. Roberval is
sometimes credited with independent discovery of the method ofindivisibles,
but actually he believed in the infinite divisibility of lines, surfaces, and
volumes, so that there are no ultimate parts. He called his method the
" method of infinities," though he used as the title of his work Traiti du
indiaisibles .
EARLY SEVEI{TEENTH-CENTURY WORK ON TIIE CALCULUS 35r
(rd)'
o
Figure 17.9
Roberval,s method ofobtaining the area under the cycloid is instructive.

LetOABP (Fig. 17.8) be the area under halfofan arch ofa cycloid' OCisthe
diameter of the generating circle and P is any point on the arch' Take
PQ : DF. The locus of Q is called the companion curve to the cycloid' (The
otrve OQB is, in our notation' ! : a sin xla wherc a is the radius of the
generating circle, provided the origin is at the midpoint of OQB and
ihe r-a*is ir parallel to OA.) Roberval affirms that the curve OQB divides
the rectangle O ABC into two equal parts because, basically, to each line DQ
in OQBC th"." an equal line ftS in OABQ' Thus Cavalieri's
"o...rponds
p"itrcipl" is employed. The rectangle OABC has its base and altitude equal,
."rp."1iu"ly, to the semicircumference and diameter of the generating circle;
hence its area is twice that of the circle. Then oABQ has the same area as
the generating circle. Also, the area between OPB and' OQB equals the area
of the semicircle OFC, since by the very definition of Q, DF : PQ, so that
these two areas are everywhere of the same width. Hence the area under the
half-arch is I I /2 times the area of the generating circle. Roberval also found
the area under one arch ofthe sine curve, the volume generated by revolving
the arch about its base, other volumes connected with the cycloid, and the
centroid of its area.
The most important new method of calculating areas, volumes, and
other quantities started with modiflcations of the Greek method of exhaustion.
Let us consider a typical example. Suppose one seeks to calculate the area
under the parabolay: *2 from x: O to T :A (Fig' l7'9)' Whereas the
method of exhaustion used different kinds of rectilinear approximating
figures, depending on the curvitinear area in question, some seventeenth-
ce=ntury -er, .dopt.d a systematic procedure using rectangles as shown' As
the width d of these rectangles becomes smaller, the sum of the areas of the
rectangles approaches the area under the curve. This sum, if the bases are
alt d in width, and ifone uses the characteristic proPerty ofthe parabola that
the ordinate is the square of the abscissa, is
(1) d.d2 + d(2d)2 + d(3d)2 +'" + d(nd)2
352 THE CREATION OF TIIE CALCULUS
or
dg(ll-2z+3e+...*n).
Now the sum of the mth powers of the first n natural numbers had been
obtained by Pascal and Fermat for use in just such problems; so the mathe-
maticians could readily replace the last expression by
(2) d"( 2ns + y--)

But d is the fixed length O-B divided by z. Hence (2) becomes
(3) on"Q +
[ .#)
Now if one argues, as these men did, that the last two terms can be neglected
when z is infinite, the correct result is obtained. The limit process had not
yet been introduced-or was only crudely perceived-and so the neglect of
terms such as the last two was not justified.
We see that the method calls for approximating the curvilinear figure by
rectilinear ones, as in the method of exhaustion. However, there is a vital
shift in the final step: in place ofthe indirect proofused in the older method,
here the number of rectangles becomes infinite and one takes the limit of (3j
as z becomes infinite-though the thinking in terms of limit was at this stage
by no means explicit. This new approach, used as early as t5B6 by Ste;
in his Statics, was pursued by many men, including Fermat.a
If the curve involved was not the parabola, then one had to replace the
characteristic property of the parabola by that of the curve in question and
so obtain some other series in place of (l) above. Summing the analogue of
(l) to obtain the analogue of (2) did call for ingenuity. Hence the results on
areas, volumes, and centers of gravity were limited. Of course the powerful
method of evaluating the limit of such sums by reversing differentiation
was not yet envisaged.
Using essentially the kind of summation technique we have just illus_
trated, Fermat knew before 1636 that (in our notation)
f"*"d*:!:
Jo n* I
for all rational n except I .a rhis result was also obtained independently by
-
Roberval, Torricelli, and Cavalieri, though in some cases only in geometrical
form and for more limited z.
Among those who used summation in geometrical form was pascal.
In 1658 he took up problems of the cycloid.6 He calculated the area of any
3. (Euures, l, 255-59; 3, 216-19.

4. (Euares, l, 255-59; 3, 2t6-t9.
5. Traihi det sinus du quart de cercle, 1659 = CEuares, g, 60-76.
Figure 17.10
segment of the curve cut off by a line parallel to the base, the centroid
of
th"e segment, and the volumes of solids generated by such segments when
revolv;d around their bases (YZ in Fig. 17'10) or a vertical line (the axis of
symmetry). In this work, as well as in earlier work on areas under the curves
of ttr. fu-ily y : tctu, he summed small rectangles in the manner described
in connectioriwith (l) above, though his work and results were stated geo-
metrically. Under the pseudonym of Dettonville, he proposed the problems
he had solved as a challenge io other mathematicians, then published his
own superior solutions (Letttes de Dettonaille, 1659) '
Beiore Newton and Leibniz, the man who did most to introduce
analytical methods in the calculus was John Wallis (1616-1703)' Though
h" iid ,rot begin to learn mathematics until he was about twenty-his
university eduJtion at Cambridge was devoted to theology-he became
professor'ofgeometryatOxfordandtheablestBritishmathematicianofthe
,"it to Newton. ln his Arithmetica l4fnitorum ( 1655)' he aPpli{
""rr,,r.y, and the method of indivisibles to effect many quadratures and
^rutyri,
obtain broad and useful results.
the
One of Wallis's notable results, obtained in his efforts to calculate
the
area of the circle analytically, was a new expression for z' He calculated
area bounded by the axes, tire ordinate at a\d the curve for
the functions
'c,
y : (l - x')o,! : (l - *\',U : (1 - *)',! : (l -
")""'
and obtained the areas
l. , | 3^ 3 I
,,* -;*',* -ix" + f,x',r -'s*'* i*u - i*""'
respectively. When * : l, these areas are
(4)
-2 B
I _-
48
" 3' --15' 105-
Now the circle is given bY Y : (l - tr2)1t2. Using induction
and interpola-
tion, Wallis calculated its area, and by further complicated reasoning
arrived at
t 2'2'4'4'6'6'B'8"'
,: T.T:r:i:i:1 .1:g='
o
)o b
)t
)2
)t )---.-
Figure I7.l I Jal X3
Gregory of St. Vincent in his Opas Geometricum (1647), gave the basis
for the important connection between the rectangular hyperbola and the
logarithm function. He showed, using the method of exhaustion, that if for
the curve ofy : llx (Fig. l7.ll) the x, are chosen so that the areas a,b,c,
d, . . . are equal, then the y, are in geometric progression. This means that
the sum of the areas from xs to x,, which sums form an arithmetical pro-
gression, is proportional to the logarithm ofthey, values or, in our notation,
Ii"*
: r'*,'
This agrees with our familiar calculus result, because g : llx. The observa-
tion that the areas can be interpreted as logarithms is actually due to Gregory,s
pupil, the Belgian Jesuit Alfons A. de Sarasa ( 16l 8-67), in his So/zreo
Problematis a Mersenno Propositi ( 1649)
. About 1665 Newton also noted the
connection between the area under the hyperbola and logarithms and in-
cluded this relation in his Method of Fluxions. He expanded l/(I + r) by the
binomial theorem and integrated term by term to obtain
.x2xa
roge(r+4:x-r+A
Nicholas Mercator, using Gregory's results, gave the same series independ-
ently (though he did not state it explicitly) in his Logarithmotee hm a of 1668.
Other men soon found series which, as we would put it, converged more
rapidly. The work on the quadrature ofthe hyperbola and its relation to the
logarithm function was done by many men, and much of it was com-
municated in letters, so that it is hard to trace the order of discovery and to
assign credit.
Up to about 1650 no one believed that the length ofa curve could equal
exactly the length of a line. In fact, in the second book of La Glomitie,
Descartes says the relation between curved lines and straight lines is not nor
ever can be known. But Roberval found the length ofan arch ofthe cycloid.
The architect Christopher Wren (1632-1723) rectified the cycloid byshowing
355
Figure 17.12
(Fig.l7.l2)thatarcPA:2PT.EWilliamNeile(1637-70)alsoobtained
of Wallis, rectified the
iroiO; ,t" iength of an arch and, using a suggestion
,"rni"..bi"ut pirabola (!" : ax') '' Fermat' too' calculated some lengths of
curves. These *"r, t rrrully used an inscribed polygon to approximate
the
curve, found. the sum of the segments, then let the number of segments
professor
become infinite as each got smaller. James Gregory (1638-75), a
at St. Andrews and Edinburgh (whose work was known slightly to his
contemporaries but not known generally until a memorial volume, edited by
H. W. burnbull, appeared in 1939), gave in his Geometriae Pars Uniacrsalis
(Universal Part of Geometry, 1668) a method of rectifying curves'
Further results on rectification were obtained by Christian Huygens
(1629-95). In particular, he gave the length ofarc of the cissoid' He also
contributed to ihe work o., u..u, and volumes and was the first to give results
ontheareasofsurfacesbeyondthatofthesphere.Thusheobtainedthe
areas of portions of the surfaces ofthe paraboloid and hyperboloid'
Huygens
obtained all these results by purely geometric methods, though he did use
arithmetic, as Archimedes did occasionally, to obtain quantitative answers'
Therectificationoftheellipsedefiedthemathematicians.Infact,
James Gregory asserted that the rectification ofthe ellipse and the hyperbola
-could -be
not achieved in terms of known functions. For a while mathe-
maticians were discouraged from further work on this problem and no new
results were obtained until the next century'
We have been discussing the chief contributions of the predecessors of
on
Newton and Leibniz to the four major problems that motivated the work
the calculus. The four problems were regarded as distinct; yet relationships
among them had been- noted and even utilized' For example' Fermat
had
,rr.d tlh" very same method for finding tangents as for finding the maximum
value ofa function. Also, the problem ofthe rate ofchange ofa function
with
respect to the independent variable and the tangent problem were readily
,"", ,o be the same. In flact, Fermat's and Barrow's method of finding
tangents is merely the geometrical counterpart of finding the rate of
change'
B,rt" th. -ajo.featr.e of the calculus, next to the very concepts of the
6. The method was published by wallis it Tractatus Duo (1659 : Olna, 1' 550-69)'
Wren gave onlY the result.
7. Neil-e's work was published by Wallis in the reference in footnote 6'
356 THE oREATToN oF THE cALcuLUs
derivative and of the integral as a limit of a sum, is the fact that the integral
can be found by reversing the differentiation process or, as we say, by finding
the antiderivative. Much evidence ofthis relationship had been encountered,
but its significance was not appreciated. Torricelli saw in special cases that
the rate problem was essentially the inverse ofthe area problem. It was, in
fact, involved in Galileo's use of the fact that the area under a velocity-time
graph gives distance. Since the rate of change of distance must be velocity,
the rate of change of area, regarded as a "sum," must be the derivative of
the area function. But Torricelli did not see the general point. Fermat, too,
knew the relationship between area and derivative in special cases but did
not appreciate its generality or importance. James Gregory , in his Geometriae
of 1668, proved that the tangent and area problems are inverse problems
but his book went unnoticed.In Geometrical Lectures, Barrow had the relation-
ship between finding the tangent to a curve and the area problem, but it
was in geometrical form, and he himself did not recognize its significance.
Actually an immense amount of knowledge of the calculus had accumu-
lated before Newton and Leibniz made their impact. A survey of even the
one book by Barrow shows a method of finding tangents, theorems on the
differentiation of the product and quotient of two functions, the differentia-
tion ofpowers ofx, the rectification ofcurves, change ofvariable in a definite
integral, and even the differentiation of implicit functions. Though in
Barrow's case the geometric formulation made the discernment of the general
ideas difficult, in Wallis's Arithmetica Infinitorum comparable results were in
algebraic form.
One wonders then what remained to be achieved in the way of major
new results. The answer is greater generality of method and the recognition
ofthe generality ofwhat had already been established in particular problems.
The work on the calculus during the first two thirds of the century lost itself
in details. Also, in their efforts to attain rigor through geometry, many men
failed to utilize or explore the implications ofthe new algebra and coordinate
geometry, and exhausted themselves in abortive subtle reasonings. What
ultimately fostered the necessary insight and the attainment of generality was
the arithmetical work of Fermat, Gregory of St. Vincent, and Wallis, the
men whom Hobbes criticized for substituting symbols for geometry. James
Gregory stated in the preface to Geometriae that the true division of mathe-
matics was not into geometry and arithmetic but into the universal and the
particular. The universal was supplied by the two all-embracing minds,
Newton and Leibniz.
3. The Work of Newton

Great advances in mathematics and science are almost always built on the
work of many men who contribute bit by bit over hundreds of years I even-
TI{E WORK OF NEWTON 357
tually one man sharp enough to distinguish the valuable ideas of his pre-
d.c.rro"s from the welter of suggestions and pronouncements, imaginative
enough to fit the bits into a new account, and audacious enough to build a
master plan takes the culminating and definitive step' In the case of the
calculus, this was Isaac Newton.
Newton (1642-1727) was born in the hamlet of Woolsthorpe, England,
where his mother managed the farm left by her husband, who died two
months before Isaac was born. He was educated at local schools of low
educational standards and as a youth showed no special flair, except for an
interest in mechanical devices. Having passed entrance examinations with a
deficiency in Euclidean geometry, he entered Trinity college of cambridge
Universiiy in 1661 and studied quietly and unobstrusively' At one time he
almost changed his course from natural philosophy (science) to law' Ap-
parently .."Jirrirg very little stimulation from his teachers, except possibly
ilu..o*, he experimented by himself and studied Descartes's Giomitrie, as
well as the works of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Wallis, and Barrow'
the university was
Just after Newton finished his undergraduate work
.lorJ do*r, because the plague was widespread in the London area' He left
Cambridgeandspenttheyears1665and1666inthequietofthefamily
home at woolsthorpe. There he initiated his great work in mechanics,
mathematics, and optics. At this time he realized that the inverse square law
of gravitation, a concePt advanced by others, including Kepler, as far back
lOt2, was the key to an embracing science of mechanics; he obtained a
",
general method for treating the problems of the calculus; and through ex-
that white light, such as
ieriments with light he made the epochal discovery
sunlight, is really composed of all colors from violet to red' "All this,"
N.*io, said latei in life, "was in the two plague years of 1665 and 1666, for
in those days I was in the prime of my age for invention, and minded mathe-
matics and philosophy [science] more than at any other time since"'
Ne*torrsaidnothingaboutthesediscoveries'HereturnedtoCambridge
in 1667 to secure a master's degree and was elected a fellow of Trinity college.
In 1669 Isaac Barrow resigned his professorship and Newton was appointed
in Barrow's place as Lucasian professor of mathematics' Apparently he was
not a successful teacher, for few students attended his lectures; nor was the
originality of the material he presented noticed by his colleagues' Only
Bri".o* and, somewhat later, the astronomer Edmond Halley (1656-1742)
recognized his greatness and encouraged him'
AtfirstNewtondidnotpublishhisdiscoveries.Heissaidtohavehad
an abnormal fear of criticism ; De Morgan says that " a morbid fear of
opposition from others ruled his whole life." when in 1672 he did publish
his *o.k on light, accompanied by his philosophy ofscience, he was severely
-most
criticized by of his contemporaries, including Robert Hooke and
Huygens, who had different ideas on the nature of light' Newton was so
958 THE oREATIoN oF THE cALcuLUs
taken aback that he decided not to publish in the future. However, in 1675
he did publish another paper on light, which contained his idea that light
was a stream of particles-the corpuscular theory of light. Again he was met
by a storm of criticism and even claims by others that they had already
discovered these ideas. This time Newton resolved that his results would be
published after his death. Nonetheless he did publish subsequent papers and
several famous books, the Pincipia, the Opticks (English edition 1704, Latin
edition 1706), and the Aithmctica Unbersalis (17O7).
From 1665 on he applied the law of gravitation to planetary motion;
in this area the works of Hooke and Huygens influenced him considerably.
In 1684 his friend Halley urged him to publish his results, but aside from his
reluctance to publish Newton lacked a proof that the gravitational attraction
exerted by a solid sphere acts as though the sphere's mass were concentrated
at the center. He says, in a letter to Halley of June 20, 1686, that until
1685 he suspected that it was false. In that year he showed that a sphere
whose density varies only with distance to the center does in fact attract an
external particle as though the sphere's mass were concentrated at its
center, and agreed to write up his work.
Halley then assisted Newton editorially and paid for the publication'
In 1687 the first editionof the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
(Tlu Mathematical Principlcs of Natural Philwophy) appeared. There were two
subsequent editions, in 1713 and 1726, the second edition containing im-
provements. Though the book brought Newton great fame, it was very
difficult to understand. He told a friend that he had purposely made it
difficult "to avoid being bated by little smatterers in mathematics." He no
doubt hoped in this way to avoid the criticism that his earlier papers on
light had received.
Newton was also a major chemist. Though there are no great discoveries
associated with his work in this area, one must take into account that
chemistry was then in its infancy. He had the correct idea of trying to explain
chemical phenomena in terms of ultimate particles, and he had a profound
knowledge of experimental chemistry. In this subject he wrote one major
paper, "De natura acidorum " (written in 1692 and published in l7l0). In
the Philosophical Transactions ofthe Royal Society of 1701, he published a
paper on heat that contains his famous law on cooling. Though he read the
works of alchemists, he did not accept their cloudy and mystical views. The
chemical and physical properties of bodies could, he believed, be accounted
for in terms of the size, shape, and motion of the ultimate particles; he
rejected the alchemists' occult forces, such as sympathy, antipathy, congruity,
and attraction.
In addition to his work on celestial mcchanics, light, and chemistry,
Newton worked in hydrostatics and hydrodynamics. Beyond his superb
experimental work on light, he experimented on the damping of pendulum
THE WORK OF NEWTON 359
motion by various media, the fall of spheres in air and water, and the flow of
water from jets. Like most men of the time Newton constructed his own
equipment. fue built two reflecting telescopes, even making the alloy for the
frames, molding the frames, making the mountings, and polishing the
lenses'
Aite. ,.rviig u, a professor for thirty-five years Newton became depressed
and suffered a nervous breakdown. He decided to give up research and in
16g5acceptedanappointmentaswardenoftheBritishMintinLondon'
During his twenty-seven years at the mint, except for work on an occasional
probleim, he did no research' He became president of the Royal Society
in
i703, unoffice he held until his death; he was knighted in 1705'
it is evident that Newton was far more bngrossed in science than in
mathematics and was an active participant in the problems of his time.
He
considered the chief value of his scientific work to be its support of
revealed
religion and was, in fact, a learned theologian, though he never took orders'
He"thought scientific research hard and dreary but stuck to it because it
g.rre .rrii.r"e of God's handiwork. Like his predecessor Barrow, Newton
t"r.rr.d to religious studies later in life. In The Chronology oJ Arcbnt Kingdoms
Amended,he tied to date accurately events described in the Bible and
other
religious documents by relating them to astronomical events' His major
relilious work was the obsentations tfion thz proplucies of Danful and tlu
Apialypse of st. John. Biblical exegesis was a phase of the rational approach
to
."figi# thit was popular in the Age of Reason; Leibniz, too, took a hand in it'
So far as the caiculus is concerned, Newton generalized the ideas
already
advanced by many men, established full-fledged methods, and showed the
interrelationships of several of the major problems described above' Though
he learned -u& ., a student of Barrow, in algebra and the calculus he
was
more influenced by the works of Wallis' He said that he was led to his
discoveries in analysis by the Arithmctica hfinitarum; certainly in his own work
on the calculus he made progress by thinking analytically' However' even
Newton thought the geometry was necessary fior a rigorous proof'
In 1669 Newton circulated among his friends a monograPh entitled
De Analysi per Aequationes Numero Terminorum ltfrnitas (On Analysis by Means
of oquJtions *iti, Infinite Number of Terms) ; it was not published until
",
l7l I . He suPposes that he has a curve and that the area z (Fig' 17' 13) under
this curve is given bY
(5) z: axn,
where m is integral or fractional. He calls an infinitesimal increase in x, the

moment of x, .nd denotes it by o, a notation used by James Gregory and
the equivalent of Fermat's E. The atea bounded by the curve, the x-axis'
the y-'axis, and the ordinate at rc + o he denotes by z * oy, og beirrg the
moment of area. Then
(6) z+og--a(x*o)^
36o THE CREATION OF T}{E CALCULUS
Figure 17.l3 x+o
He applies the binomial theorem to the right side, obtaining an infinite

series when zz is fractional, subtracts (5) from (6), divides through
by o,
neglects those terms that still contain o, and obtains
! : max^-t'
Thus, in our language, the rate of change of area at any x is the y-value of
the curve at that value ofx. Conversely, if the curve is g : max^-1, the
area under it is z : axn.
In this process Newton not only gave a general method for finding the
instantaneous rate of change ofone variable with respect to another (z with
respect to x in the above example), but showed that area can be obtained by
reversing the process of finding a rate of change. Since areas had also been
expressed and obtained by the summation of infinitesimal areas, Newton
also showed that such sums can be obtained by reversing the process offinding
a rate of change. This fact, that summations (more properly, limits of sums)
can be obtained by reversing differentiation, is what we now call the funda-
mental theorem of the calculus. Though it was known in special cases and
dimly foreseen by Newton's predecessors, he saw it as general. He applied
the method to obtain the area under many curves and to solve other problems
that can be formulated as summations.
After showing that the derivative ofthe area is they-value and asserting
that the converse is true, Newton gave the rule that, if the y-value be a sum
of terms, then the area is the sum of the areas that result from each of the
terms. In modern terms, the indefinite integral of a sum of functions is the
sum of the integrals of the separate functions.
His next contribution in the monograph carried further his use of infinite
series. To integrate y : azl(b + r), he divided a2 by b * x and obtained
a2
,!:---J-----L..-
a2x a2x2 a2x3
" b b2' b3 b4
Having obtained this infinite series, he finds the integral by integrating

term by term so that the area is
a2t( a2)c2-t-- dzxB a2x4
--L- -
b 2b2 ' 3b3-- 4b4 '
THE woRK oF NEwroN 36r
He says of this infinite series that a few of the initial terms are exact enough
for any use, provided that D be equal to .r repeated some few times'
Likewise, to integrate y : ll0 * x2) he uses the binomial expansion
to write
y:l-x2+x4-xo+xa-...
and integrates term by term' He notes that if, instead, y is taken to be
ll(x2 + 1), then by binomial expansion one would obtain
! : x-2 - x-a +*-6 _ *-8 +...
and now one can integrate term by term. He then remarks that when 'r is
small enough the first expansion is to be used; but when x is large, the
second is to be used. Thus he was somewhat aware that what we call con-
vergence is important, but had no precise notion about it'
Newton iealized that he had extended term by term integration to
infinite series but says in the De Analysi.z
And whatever the common Analysis performs by Means of Equations of
a finite Number of Terms (provided that can be done) this can always
perform the same by Means of infinite Equations so that I have not made
any question of giving this the name of Analysis likewise' For the reason-
ings in this are no less certain than in the other; nor the equations less
exact; albeit we Mortals whose reasoning Powers are confined within
narrow limits, can neither exPress, nor so conceive all the Terms of these
Equations, as to know exactly from thence the quantities we lvant'
Thus far in his approach to the calculus Newton used what may be
described as the method of infinitesimals. Moments are infinitely small
quantities, indivisibles or infinitesimals. of course the logic of what Newton
did i. ro, clear. He says in this work that his method is "shortly explained
rather than accurately demonstrated."
Newton gave a second, more extensive, and more definitive exposition
of his ideas in the book Methodus Fluxionum et scrierum hfinitarum, written in
1671 but not published until 1736. In this work he says he regards his
variables as generated by the continuous motion ofpoints, lines, and planes,
rather than as static aggregates of infinitesimal elements, as in the earlier
paper. A variable quantity he now called a fluent and its rate of change, the
hr*io.r. His notation is * and/ for fluxions of the fluents t andy' The fluxion
of .i is ,f , etc. The fluent of which x is the fluxion is l, and the fluent of the
latter is *.
In this second work Newton states somewhat more clearly the funda-
mental problem of the calculus: Given a relation between two fluents, find
the relaiion between their fluxions, and conversely. The two variables whose
relation is given can represent any quantities. However, Newton thinks of
them as chlnging with iime because it is a useful way of thinking, though'
262 THE CREATToN oF THE cALcuLUs
he points out, not necessary. Hence if a is an "infinitely small interval of

time," then *o and gjo are the indefinitely small increments in r and y or the
moments of x and y. To find the relation between 1j and, i, suppose, for
e.:lamPle, the fluent is g : 7". Newton first forms
!*!io:(x**o)",
and then proceeds as in the earlier paper. He expands the right side by
using the binomial theorem, subtracts y : x', divides through by o, neglects
all terms still containing o, and obtains
g : ssn- t1.
In modern notation this result can be written
Idt: n*"-'4,dt
and since dyldx : (dyldt) l@xldt), Newton, in finding the ratio of dyldt to
dxldt or ! to i, has found dgldx.
The method of fluxions is not essentially different from the one used in
the De Analgsi, nor is the rigor any better; Newton drops terms such as i*a
and **o*o (he writes *3oo) on the ground that they are infinitely small com-
pared to the one retained. However, his point of view in the Method of
Fluxions is somewhat different. The moments io and go change with time o,
whereas in the fust paper the moments are ultimate fixed bits of x and z.
This newer view follows the more dynamic thinking of Galileo; the older
used the static indivisible of Cavalieri. The change served, as Newton put it,
only to remove the harshness from the doctrine of indivisibles; however, the
moments *o and /o are still some sort of infinitely small quantities. Moreover,
i and !, which are the fluxions or derivatives with respect to time of * and
y, are never really defined; this central problem is evaded.
Given a relation between * andy, finding the relation between x and, y
is more difficult than merely integrating a function of x. Newton treats
several types: (l) when *, 11, and x or ! ate present; (2) when i, 1!, x, and, y
are present; (3) when *, y, 2, and. the fluents are present. The first type is
the easiest and, in modern notation, calls for solving dgldx : /(r). Of the
second type, Newton treats yl* : I - 3* i g I x2 | xg andsolves it by a
successive approximation process. He starts with 1il*: I
- 3r * x2 as a
first approximation, obtains y as a function ofr, introduces this value ofy on
the right side of the original equation, and continues the process. Newton
describes what he does but does not justify it. Of the third type, he treats
2i - a +1ix:0. He assumes a relation between x and y, say x:y2, so
that i : 21jy. Then the equation becomes 4!C - Z - !i!' : 0, from which
he gets 2y2 + (y" 13) : z. Thus, if the third type is regarded as a partial
differential equation, Newton obtains only a particular integral.
THE WORK OF NEWTON 363
Newton realized that in this paper he had presented a general method'

In a letter to John Collins, dated Decembet 10, 1672, wherein he gives the
facts of his method and one example, he says,
This is one particular, or rather corollary, of a general method, which
extends itself, without any troublesome calculations, not only to the
drawing of tangents to any curved lines, whether geometrical or mechani-
cal. . , but also to resolving other abstruser kinds of problems about the
crookedness, areas, lengths, centres of gravity of curves, etc'; nor is it" '
limited to equations which are free from surd quantities' This method I
have interwoven with that other of working in equations, by reducing
them to infinite series.
Newton emphasized the use of infinite series because thereby he could treat
functions rrr"h ut (l + #)3/2, whereas his predecessors had been limited on
the whole to rational algebraic functions.
In his Tractatus de Quadrafiira Curaarurn (Quadrature of Curves), a third
paper on the calculus, written in 1676 but published in 1704, Newton says
ire has abandoned the infinitesimal or infinitely small quantity' He now
criticizes the dropping of terms involving o for, he says,
in mathematics the minutest errors are not to be neglected' ' ' ' I con-
sider mathematical quantities in this place not as consisting of very small
parts, but as described by a continual motion' Lines are described, and
iher.by g.rreruted, not by the apposition of parts, but by the continued
motion of poins I superficies by the motion of lines; solids by the motioru
of superficies I angles by the rotation of the sides; portions of time by
continued flux.. . .
Fluxions are' as near as we please, as the increments of fluents
generated in times, equal and as small as possible, and to speak accurately'
th.y u.. in the prime ratio of nasccnt increments; yet they can be
expressed by any lines whatever, which are proportional to them'
Newton'snewconcePt,themethodofprimeandultimateratio,amounts
to this. He considers the function ! : x". To find the fluxion of y or 'rn, let
r "by flowing" become r + o. Then .r' becomes
o
(x + o)*: xn * noxn-L *o': o'*o-' *""
The increases ofx andy, namely, o and no*n-r * + ozxn-2 +"'ate

to each other as (dividing both by o)
I to nxo-a *+ oxo-z *....

"Let now the increments vanish and their last proportion will be"
I to nxn-r
964 THE CREATION OF TI{E CALCULUS
Figure 17.14
Then the fluxion of .r is to the fluxion of .r" as I to n*n-7 or, as we would

say today, the rate ofchange ofy with respect to x is nxn-r. This is the prime
ratio of the nascent increments. Of course the logic of this version is no
better than that of the preceding twol nevertheless Newton says this method
is in harmony with the geometry of the ancients and that it is not necessary
to introduce infinitely small quantities.
Newton also gave a geometrical interpretation. Given the data in
Figure 17.14, suppose Dc moves to.BC so that c coincides with C. Then the
curvilinear triangle CEc is "in the last form " similar to triangle CET, and
its "evanescent" sides will be proportional to CE, ET, and, CT. F{ence the
fluxions of the quantities AB, BC, and AC are, in the last ratio of their
evanescent increments, proportional to the sides of the hiangle CET or
triangle VBC.
In the Method of Flutions Newton made a number of applications of
fluxions to differentiating implicit functions and to finding tangents of
curves, maxima and minima of functions, curvature of curves, and points
of inflection of curves. He also obtained areas and lengths of curves. In
connection with curvature, he gave the correct formula for the radius of
curvature, namely,
,_ (l + i2\3t2
!
where * is taken as l. He also gave this same quantity in polar coordinates.
Finally, he included a brief table of integrals.
Newton did not publish his basic papers in the calculus until long after
he had written them. The earliest printed account of his theory of fluxions
appeared in Wallis's Algebra (2nd ed. in Latin, 1693), of which Newton
wrote pages 390 to 396. Had he published at once he might have avoided the
controversy with Leibniz on the priority of discovery.
Newton's first publication involving his calculus is the great Mathe-
matical Principles of Natural Philosophy.s So far as the basic notion of the
8. The third edition was translated into English by Andrew Motte in 1729. This edition,
revised and edited by Florian Cajori, was published by the University of California Press
in 1946.
THE woRK oF NEwroN 365
calculus, the fluxion, or, as we say, the derivative, is concerned, Newton

makes several statements. IIe rejects infinitesimals or ultimate indivisible
quantities in favor ofevanescent divisible quantities," quantities which
..
can be diminished without end. In the first and third editions of the Principia
Newton says, ,,IJltimate ratios in which quantities vanish are not, strictly
speaking, ratios of ultimate quantities, but limits to which the ratios of these
quantities, decreasing without limit, approach, and which, though they can
*^" ,.u"". than any given difference whatever, they can neither pass over
e
nor attain before the quantities have diminished indefinitely." This is the
clearest statement he ever gave as to the meaning of his ultimate ratio.
Apropos ofthe preceding quotation, he also says, "By the ultimate velocity
is meant that with which the body is moved, neither before it arrives at its
last place, when the motion ceases, nor after I but at the very instaut when it
a..i',res. . . . And, in like manner, by the ultimate ratio of evanescent quan-
tities is to be understood the ratio of quantities, not before they vanish, nor
after, but that with which they vanish."
ln the Principia Newton used geometrical methods of proof' However, in
what are called the Portsmouth Papers, containing unpublished work, he
used analytical methods to find some of the theorems' These papers show
that he also obtained analytically results beyond those he was able to trans-
late into geometry. One reason he resorted to Seometry is believed to be that
the proofi would be more understandable to his contemporaries. Another is
that he admired Huygens's geometrical work immensely and hoped to equal
it. In these geometrical proofs Newton uses the basic limit processes of the
calculus. Thus the area under a curve is considered essentially as the limit
of the sum of the approximating rectangles, just as in the calculus today'
llowever, instead of calculating srrch areas, he uses this concept to compare
areas under diflerent curves.
He proves that, when AR and BR (Fig' 17'15) are the perpendiculars
to the tingent s at A arrd .B of the arc ACB, the ultimate ratio, when 'B
approaches- and coincides with z{, of any two of the quantities chord lB'
,eCA, arrd AD, is l. Ilence he says in Corollary 3 to Lemma 2 of Book I'
"ii
"And therefore in all our reasoning about ultimate ratios, we may freely use
any one ofthese lines for any other." He then proves that when B approaches
ani coincides with A, the ratio of any two triangles (ateas) RAB, RACB'
andRADwillbel...Andhenceinallreasoningsaboutultimateratios,we
may use any one of these triangles for any other'" Also, (Fig' 17'16) let BD
uni CEb" perpendicular to lE (which is not necessarily tangent to arc ABC
at,4). When B and C apptoach and coincide with l, the ultimate ratio of the
areas ACE and ABD will equal the ultimate ratio of AE2 to AD2'
The Principi.a contains a wealth of results, some of which we shall note'
9. Third edition, P. 39.

Though the book is devoted to celestial mechanics, it has enormous impor-

tance for the history of mathematics, not only because Newton's own work on
the calculus was motivated in large part by his overriding interest in the
problems treated therein, but because the Principia presented new topics and
approaches to problems that were explored during the next hundred years
in the course of which an enormous amount of analysis was created.
The Prircipia is divided into three books.1o In a prefatory section Newton
defines concepts of mechanics such as inertia, momentum, and force, then
states the three famous axioms or laws of motion. In his words, they are:
Law I. Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a

right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
upon it.
Law II. The change [in the quantity] of motion is proportional to the motive
power impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that
force is impressed.
By quantity of motion Newton means, as he has explained earlier, the

mass times the velocity. Hence the change in motion, if the mass is constant,
is the change in velocity, that is, the acceleration. This second law is now
often written as F : mq when the force F is in poundals, the mass rz is in
pounds, and the acceleration a is in feet per second per second. Newton's
second law is really a vector statement; that is, if the force has components in,
say, three mutually perpendicular directions, then each component causes an
acceleration in its own direction. Newton did use the vector character of
force in particular problems, but the full significance of the vector nature of
10. All references are to the edition mentioned in note 8.

the law was first fully recognized by Euler. This law incorporates the key
change from the mechanics of Aristotle, which affirmed that force causes
velocity. Aristotle had also affirmed that a force is needed to maintain
velocity. Law I denies this'
Law III. To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction' ' ' '
We shall not digress into the history of mechanics excePt to note that
the first two laws are more explicit and somewhat generalized statements of
the principles of motion previously discovered and advanced by Galileo and
Descartes. The distinction between mass, that is, the resistance a body offers
to a change in its motion, and weight, the force gravity exerts on the mass of
any object, is also due to these men; and the vector character of force
generalires Galileo,s principle that the vertical and horizontal motions of a
projectile, for example, can be treated independently.
Book I of the Principia begins with some theorems of the calculus,
including the ones involving ultimate ratios cited above. It then discusses
motion under central forces, that is, forces that always attract the moving
object to one (fixed) point (the sun in practice), and proves in Proposition I
that equal areas are swept out in equal time (which encompasses Kepler's
law of areas). Newton considers next the motion ofa body along a conic
section and proves (Props. I l, 12, and 13) that the force must vary with the
inverse square of the distance from some fixed point' He also proves the
converse, which contains Kepler's first law. After some treatment of cen-
tripetal force, he deduces Kepler's third law (Prop. l5)' There follow two
,""1ior* devoted to properties of the conic sections. The principal problem is
the construction of conics that satisfy five given conditions; in practice these
are usually observational data. Then, given the time an object has been in
motion along a conic section, he determines its velocity and position' He
takes up the motion of the apse lines, that is, the lines joining the center of
attraction (at one focus) to the maximum or minimum distance of a body
moving along a conic that is itself rotating at some rate about the focus'
section 10 is devoted to the motion of bodies along surfaces with special
reference to pendulum motion. Here Newton gives due acknowledgment to
Huygens. In connection with the accelerating effect ofgravity on motions, he
invertigates geometrical proPerties of cycloids, epicycloids, and hypocycloids
and gives the length of the epicycloid (Prop. 49).
in Section I I Newton deduces from the laws of motion and the law of
gravitation the motion of two bodies, each attracting the other in accordance
*ith th. gravitational force. Their motion is reduced to the motion of one
around the fixed second body. The moving body traverses an ellipse'
He then considers the attraction exerted by spheres and spheroids of
uniform and varying density on a particle. He gives (Sec' 12, Prop' 70) a
geometrical proof that a thin homogeneous spherical shell exerts no force on
368 THE CREATToN oF THE cALcuLUs
a particle in its interior. Since this result holds for a thin shell, it holds for a
sum of such shells, that is, for a shell of finite thickness. (He proves later
[Prop. 91, Cor. 3] that the same result holds for a homogeneous ellipsoidal
shell, that is, a shell contained between two similar ellipsoidal surfaces,
similarly placed.) Proposition 71 shows that the attraction of a thin homo-
geneous spherical shell on an external particle is equivalent to the attraction
that would be exerted if the mass ofthe shell were concentrated at the center,
so that the shell attracts the external particle toward the center and with a
force varying inversely as the square ofthe distance from the center. Proposi-
tion 73 shows that a solid homogeneous sphere attracts a particle inside with
a force proportional to the particle's distance from the center. As for the
attraction that a solid homogeneous sphere exerts on an external point,
Proposition 74 shows that it is the same as if the mass of the sphere were
concentrated at its center. Then if two spheres attract each other, the first
attracts every particle of the second as if the mass of the first were concen-
trated at its center. Thus the first sphere becomes a particle attracted by the
distributed mass of the secondl hence the second sphere can also be treated
as a particle with its mass concentrated at its center. Thus both spheres can
be treated as particles with their masses concentrated at their respective
centers. All these results, original with Newton, are extended to spheres
whose densities are spherically symmetric and to other laws of attraction in
addition to the inverse square law.
Newton next takes up the motion of three bodies, each attracting the
other two, and obtains some approximate results. The problem of the motion
of three bodies has been a major one since Newton's time and has not been
solved as yet,
The second book of the Principia is devoted to the motion of bodies in
resisting media such as air and liquids. It is the beginning of the subject of
hydrodynamics. Newton assumes in some problems that the resistance of the
medium is proportional to the velocity and in others to the square of the
velocity of the moving body. He considers what shape a body must have to
encounter least resistance (see Chap. 24, sec. I ) . He also considers the motion
of pendulums and projectiles in air and in fluids. A section is devoted to the
theory of waves in air (e.g., sound waves) and he obtains a formula for the
velocity of sound in air. He also treats the motion of waves in water. Newton
continues with a description of experiments he made to determine the
resistance fluids offer to bodies moving in them. One major conclusion is
that the planets move in a vacuum. In this book Newton broke entirely new
ground; however, the definitive work on fluid motion was yet to be done
Book III, entitled On the System oJ thz World, contains the application of
the general theory developed in Book I to the solar system. It shows how
the sun's mass can be calculated in terms of the earth's mass, and that the
mass of any planet having a satellite can be found in the same way. He
calculates the average density ofthe earth and finds it to be between 5 and 6
times that of water (today's figure is about 5'5)'
Heshowsthattheearthisnotatruespherebutanoblatespheroidand
spheroid
calculates the flattening; his result is that the etlipticity ofthe oblate
is l/230 (the figure today is l/297). From the observed oblateness of any
planet, the lengih ofits day is then calculated. Using the amount offlattening
and the notioi of centripetal force, Newton comPutes the variation of the
earth's gravitational attraction over the surface and thus the variation
in the
*eight if an object. He proves that the attractive force of a spheroid is not
the same as if the spheroid's mass were concentrated at its center'
He then u""olr.rt, for the precession of the equinoxes' The explanation is
basedonthefactthattheearthisnotsphericalbutbulgesoutalongthe
equator. Consequently the gravitational attraction of the moon on the earth
does ,ot effectively act on the center ofthe earth but forces a
periodic change
in the direction ofthe earth's axis of rotation' The period of this change was
calculated by Newton and found to be 26,000 years, the value obtained by
Hipparchus ty inference from observations available to him'
Newton explained the main features of the tides (Book I' Prop' 66'
Book III, Props. 36, 37). The moon is the main cause; the sun, the second'
Using the sun-'s mass he calculated the height of the solar tides' From the
obseied heights of the spring and neap tides (sun and moon in full con-
junction
-estimate or
lull opposition) he determined the lunar tide and made an
of the mass of the moon. Newton also managed to give some
approximate treatment of the effect of the sun on the moon's motion around
the.a.th. He determined the motion of the moon in latitude and longitude;
the motion of the apse line (the line from the center of the earth to the
maximum distance of the moon) ; the motion of the nodes (the points in
which the moon's path cuts the plane of the earth's orbit; these points
regress, that is, moie slowly in a direction opposite to the motion
of the
mlon iiself) I the evection (a periodic change in the eccentricity ofthe moon's
orbit) ; the annual equation (the effect on the moon's motion of the daily
change in distance beiween the earth and the sun); and the periodic
change
in thI inclination of the plane of the moon's orbit to the plane of the earth's
orbit. There were seven known irregularities in the motion of the moon and
Newton discovered two more, the inequalities of the apogee (apse line) and
of the nodes. His approximation gave only half of the motion of the apse line'
Clairaut in 1752 improved the calculation and obtained the full 3' of
rotation of the apse line; however, much later John Couch Adams found the
correct calculation in Newton's papers. Finally Newton showed that
the
comets must be moving under the gravitational attraction of the sun because
their paths, determinid on the basis of observations' are conic sections'
N.*ton devoted a great deal of time to the problem of the moon's motion
was needed to
because, u, *" ,rot"l in the preceding chapter, the knowledge
improve the method of determining Iongitude. He worked so hard on this

problem that he complained it made his head ache.
4. The Work of l*ibniz

Though his contributions were quite different, the man who ranks with
Newton in building the calculus is Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646_1716).
He studied law and, after defending a thesis on logic, received a Bachelor of
Philosophy degree. In 1666, he wrote the thesis De Arte Combinatona (On the
Art of Combinations),ll a work on a universal method of reasoning; this
completed his work for a doctorate in philosophy at the University of
Altdorf and qualified him for a professorship. During the years 1670 and
167l Leibniz wrote his first papers on mechanics, and, by 1671. had produced
his calculating machine. He secured a job as an ambassador for the Elector
of Mainz and in March of 1672 went to paris on a political mission. This
visit brought him into contact with mathematicians and scientists, notably
Huygens, and stirred up his interest in mathematics. Though he had done a
little reading in the subject and had written the paper of 1666, he says he
knew almost no mathematics up to 1672. In 1673 he went to London and
met other scientists and mathematicians, including Henry Oldenburg, at that
time secretary of the Royal Society of London. While making his living as a
diplomat, he delved further into mathematics and read Descartes and pascal.
In 1676 Leibniz was appointed librarian and councilror to the Erector of
Hanover. Twenty-four years later the Elector of Brandenburg invited
Leibniz to work for him in Berlin. while involved in all sorts of political
maneuvers, including the succession of George Ludwig of Hanover to the
English throne, Leibniz worked in many fields and his side activities covered.
an enorrnous range. He died neglected in 1716.
In addition to being a diplomat, Leibniz was a philosopher, lawyer,
historian, philologist, and pioneer geologist. He did important work in logic,
mechanics, optics, mathematics, hydrostatics, pneumatics, nautical science,
and calculating machines. Though his profession wasjurisprudence, his work
in mathematics and philosophy is among the best the world has produced.
He kept contact by letter with people as far away as China and Ceylon. He
tried endlessly to reconcile the catholic and protestant faiths. It was he who
proposed, in 1669, that a German Academy of Science be founded; finally
the Berlin Academy was organized in 1700. His original recommendation
had been for a society to make inventions in mechanics and discoveries in
chemistry and physiology that would be useful to mankind; Leibniz wanted
knowledge to be applied. He called the universities ,.monkish,,and charged
that they possessed learning but no judgrnent and were absorbed in trifles.
I I . Publishcd 1690 : Dic philosophisctu Schiften, 4, 27-102.

THE WORK OF LEIBNIZ 37r
Instead he urged the pursuit of real knowledge-mathematics, physics'

geography, che-mistry, anatomy, botany, zoology, and history' To Leibniz
ifre"rtiit. of the artisan and the practical man were more valuable than the
learned subtleties of the professional scholars' He favored the German
language over Latin because Latin was allied to the older, useless thought'
MJn mask their ignorance, he said, by using the Latin language to impress
people
people. German, 6n the other hand, was understood by the common
arricorld be developed to help clarity ofthought and acuteness ofreasoning'
Leibniz published papers on the calculus from 1684 on, and we shall
say more about them litir. However, many of his results, as well as the
development of his ideas, are contained in hundreds of pages of notes made
from 1673 on but never published by him. These notes, as one might expect,
jump from one topic to another and contain changing notation as Leibniz's
it irrili.rg developed. Some are simply ideas that occurred to him while
reading-books or articles by Gregory ofSt' Vincent, Fermat, Pascal, Descartes'
and Balrrow or trying to cast their thoughts into his own way of approaching
the calculus. r" izt+ Leibniz wrote Histaria ct origo calculi Diferentialis, in
which he gives an account of the development of his own thinking' However'
this was written many years after he had done his work and, in view of
the
weaknesses of human memory and the greater insight he had acquired by
that time, his history may not be accurate' Since his purPose was to defend
himself against an accusation of plagiarism, he might have distorted un-
consciously his account of the origins of his ideas'
Despiie the confused state of Leibniz's notes we shall examine a few'
because ih"y r",re.l how one ofthe greatest intellects struggled to understand
and create. By 1673 he was aware of the important direct and inverse
problem offiniing tangents to curves; he was also quite sure that the inverse
method was equivalent to finding areas and volumes by summations' The
somewhat systimatic development of his ideas begins with notes of 1675'
However, it seems helpful, in order to understand his thinking, to note that
in his Da Arte Combinatoria he had considered sequences of numbers, first
differences, second differences, and higher-order differences' Thus for
the
sequence of squares
0, 1,4,9,16,25,36,
the first differences are
1,3,5,7,9, ll
and the second differences are
2,2,2,2,2,2.
Leibniz noted the vanishing of the second differences for the sequence of
natural numbers, the third differences for the sequence of squares' and so on'
Figure 17.17
I, )
B
He also observed, of course, that if the original sequence starts from 0, the
sum of the first differences is the last term of the sequence.
To relate these facts to the calculus he had to think of the sequence of
numbers as the y-values of a function and the difference of any two as the
difference of two nearby y-values. Initially he thought of r as representing
the order of the term in the sequence and, g as representing the value ofthat
term.
The quantity dr, which he often writes as a, is then I because it is the
difference ofthe orders of two successive terms, and dy is the actual difference
in the values of two successive terms. Then using omn. as an abbreviation
for the Latin omnia, to mean sum, and using I for dy, Leibniz concludes that
omn. / : y, because omn. I is the sum of the first differences of a sequence
whose terms begin with 0 and so gives the last term. However, ornn. yl
presents a new problem. Leibniz obtains the result that olrrn. yl is y2l2 by
thinking in terms of the function y : ,,. Thus, as Figure 17.17 shows, the
area of triangle ABC is the sum of the yl (for "small" /) and it is also y212.
Leibniz says, " Straight lines which increase from nothing each multiplied
by its corresponding element of increase form a triangle." These few facts
already appear, among more complicated ones, in papers of 1673.
In the next stage he struggled with several difficulties. He had to make
the transition from a discrete series of values to the case where dy arrd, dx are
increments ofan arbitrary functiony ofr. Since he was still tied to sequences,
wherein x is the order of the term, his a or /x was I ; so he inserted and omitted
a freely. When he made the transition to the dy and dx of any function, this
a was no longer 1. Iilowever, while still struggling with the notion of summa-
tion he ignored this fact.
Thus in a manuscript of October 29, 1675, Leibniz starts with
_t
(7) omn. z/ : omn.omn. l1r
'a
TrrE WORK OF LErBNrz 373
which holds because y itself is omn. /. Here he divides I by a to preserve

dimensions. Leibniz says that (7) holds, whatever / may be. But, as we saw
in connection with Figure I 7.17,
(B) ornn.4:$'
Hence from (7) and (B)
(9) $: o" o "l!'

fn our notation, he has shown that
q: !{t,+*: t,H
Leibniz says that this result is admirable.
Another theorem of the same kind, which Leibniz derived from a
geometrical argument, is
(10) omn. xl : , omn. / - omn'omn. /,
where I is the difference in values of two successive terms of a sequence and

x is the number of the term. For us this equation is
[.on:w-lua..
Now Leibniz lets I itself in (10) be r, and obtains
omn. *2 : ,r omn. .r - omn.Omn. .r.
But omn. x, he says, is x2l2 (he has shown that omn. yl is y2/2). Hence
omn. *' :.+ - o n.l'

By transposing the last term he gets
omn. x' : ?'

-3
In this manuscript of Octobet 29, 1675, Leibniz decided to write J for

omn., so that
.f'l: o*r,. t ^ra .l*:{'

The symbol I is an elongated ,S for "sum."
Leibniz' realized rather early, probably from studying the work of
Barrow, that differentiation and integration as a summation must be
374 TIIE CREATION OF TIIE CALCULUS
inverse processes; so area, when differentiated, must give a length. Thus, in

the same manuscript of October 29, Leibniz says, " Given I and its relation
to ,, to find Jr." Then, he says, "suppose that J !:ga. Let 1:yald.
[Here he puts d in the denominator. It would mean more to us if he wrote
I : d(ya),] Then just as J will increase, so d will diminish the dimensions.
ButJ means a sum, and d, a difference. From the given y we can always find
gld or l, that is, the difference of the y's. Hence one equation may be trans-
formed into the other; just as from the equation
,IT"
l,l, : -iF'
we can obtain the equation
,JT
,
T,,: Saed
In this early paper Leibniz seems to be exploring the op"erations of I and
-He finally realizes thatJ does
d and sees that they are inverses. not raise
dimension nor d lower it, because J is really a summation of rectangles, and
so a sum of areas. Thus he recognizes that, to get back to dg frorn y, he must
form tfie difference ofy's or take the differential ofy. Then he says, "ButJ
means a sum and d a difference." This may have been a later insertion.
Ilence a couple of weeks afterwards, in order to get fromy to dg,he changes
from dividing by d to taking the differential ofy, and writes dg.
Up to this point Leibniz had been thinking of the y-values as values of
terms of a sequence and of x usually as the order of these terms, but now, in
this paper, says, " All these theorems are true for series in which the dif-
ferences of the terms bear to the terms themselves a ratio that is less than any
assignable quantity." That is, dyly may be less than any assignable quantity.
In a manuscript dated November 11, 1675, entitled " Examples of the
inverse method of tangents," Leibniz usesJ for the sum and x/d for difference.
He then says xld is dr, the difference of two consecutive x-values, but ap-
parently here dx is a constant and equal to unity.
From barely intelligible arguments such as the above, Leibniz asserted
the liact tlaat integration as a sumrnation process is the inaerse oJ diferentiation. This
idea is in the work of Barrow and Newton, who obtained areas by anti-
differentiation, but it is first expressed as a relation between summation and
differentiation by Leibniz. Despite this outright assertion, he was by no
means clear as to how to obtain an area from what one might loosely write as
\y dx-that is, how to obtain an area under a curve from a set of rectangles.
Of course this difficulty beset all the seventeenth-century workers. Not pos-
sessing a clear concept of a limit, or even clear notions about area, Leibniz
thought of the latter sometimes as a sum of rectangles so small and so
THE WORK OF LEIBNIZ 375
Figure 17.18
numerous that the difference between this sum and the true area under the
curve could be neglected, and at other times as a sum of the ordinates or
y-values. This latter concePt of area was common' especially among the
indivisibilists, who thought that the ultimate unit of area and the y-value
were the same.
With respect to differentiation, even after recognizing that dg and dx
can be arbitrarily small quantities, Leibniz had yet to overcome the funda-
mental difficulty that the rutio dgldx is not quite the derivative in our sense.
He based his argument on the characteristic triangle, which Pascal and
Barrow had also used. This triangle (Fig. 17.18) consists of dy, dt, and the
chord PQ, which Leibniz also thought of as tlu curae bctween P and Qand part
ol the tangent al T. Though he speaks of this triangle as indefinitely small, he
maintains nevertheless that it is similar to a definite triangle' namely, the
triangle SIU formed by the subtangent SU, the ordinate at f, and the
length of tangent S7- Hence dg and dx are ultimate elements, and their ratio
has a definite meaning. In fact, he uses the argument that, from the similar
triangles PftQ and SUT, dgldx : TUISU.
In the manuscript of November 11, 1675, Leibniz shows how he can
solve a definite problem. He seeks the curve whose subnormal is inversely
proportional to the ordinate. In Figure l7.l8, the normal is TV and the
subnormal p is uV. From the similarity of triangles PRQ and TUV, he has
dvP
dxs
pd*:ydy.
But the curve has the given property
,c
b: -,b
376 TI{E CREATION OF THE CALCULUS
where D is the proportionality constant. Hence
* :# 0,.
Then
I*:lt*
ug
x:TE'
Leibniz also solved other inverse tangent problems.
In a paper ofJune 26, 1676, he realizes that the best method of finding
tangents is to find dgldx, wherc dy and. dx are differences and. dgldx is the
quotient. IIe ignores dt.dx and higher powers of /.r.
By November of 1676, he is able to give the general rules dx" :
nx"-r dx fot integral and fractional n and, J x" : x"+r ln * l, and says, "The
reasoning is general, and it does not depend upon what the progressions
of the x's may be." Here x still means the order of the terms of a sequence.
In this manuscript he also says that to differe ntiate \/iJn7jE, let
a + bz + czL : x, differentiate l-tt, and. multiply by dxldz. This is the
chain rule.
ByJuly ll, 1677 , Leibniz could give the correct rules for the differential
ofsum, difference, product, and quotient of two functions and for powers and
roots, but no proofs. In the manuscript of November Ll, 1675, he had
struggled with d (ua) and d(ula), and thought that d (uo) : du da.
In 1680, dr has become the difference of abscissas and, dg the differences
in the ordinates. IIe says, ". . . now these d,r and, dy are taken to be infinitely
small, or the two points on the curve are understood to be a distance apart
that is less than any given length. . . . " He calls dy the ('momentaneous
increment" in y as the ordinate moves along the r-axis. But PQ in Figure
l7.lB is still considered part ofa straight line. It is "an element ofthe curve
or a side of the infinite-angled polygon that stands for the curve. . . ." He
continues to use the usual differential form. Thus, if y : d2lx, therr
- a2-
: _7dx.
dg
He also says that differences are the opposite to sums. Then, to get the area
under a curve (Fig. 17.19), he takes the sum of the rectangles and says one
can neglect the remaining " triangles, since they are infinitely small com-
THE WORK OF LEIBNIZ 3?7
Figure 17.19
pared to the rectangles . . . thus I represent in my calculus the area of the

figure by J y dx. . . ." He also gives, for the element of arc,
a' : IVF-+W;
and, for the volume of a solid of revolution obtained by revolving a curve
around the r-axis,
V:,lu2dx.
J"
Despite prior statements that dr artd' dg ate small differences, he still
talks about ,"qr".,".r. He says, " Differences and sums are the inverses of
one another, that is to say, the sum ofthe differences ofa series [sequence] is
a term of the series, and the difference of the sums of a series is a term of the
series, and I enumerate the former thus, J d* : tc, a,,d the latter thus,
d.f x: dx." In fact, in a manuscript written after 1684, Leibniz says his
#ethod of infinitesimals has become widely known as the calculus of
differences.
Leibniz's first publication on the calculus is in the Acta Eruditorum of
1684.12 In this paper the meaning of dy and is still not clear. He says in one
/r
place, let dxbiaiy arbitrary quantity, and dg is defined by (see Fig' 17'18)
dg:dx : g: subtangent.
This definition ofdy presumes some expression for the subtangent; hence the
definition is not complete. Moreover, Leibniz's definition of tangent as a line
joining
- two infinitely near points is not satisfactory.
H" also gives in this paper the ruies he had obtained in 1677 for the
differential of the sum, product, and quotient of two functions and the rule
for finding d (x") . ln this last case he sketches the proof for positive integral a
but says th" .ri" is true for all n; fot the other rules he gives no proofs' He-
makes applications to finding tangents, maxima and minima, and points of
inflection. This paper, six pages long, is so unclear that the Bernoulli
brothers called it "an enigma rather than an explication'"l3
12. Acta Erud.,3, 168+, 467 -73 : Math. Schrtften, 5,220-26'

13. Leibniz: Math. SchriJten,3, Part 1,5.
In a paper of 168614 Leibniz gives
Y: \E-7 * Jl2x-xz
l-=4-^
as the equation of the cycloid. His point here is to show that by his methods
and notation some curves can be expressed as equations not obtainable in
other ways. He reaffirms this in his Historia where he says that his dx,, ddx
(second difference), and the sums that are the inverses of these differences
can be applied to all functions of x, not excepting the mechanical curves of
Vieta and Descartes, which Descartes had said have no equations. Leibniz
also says that he can include curves that Newton could not handle even with
his method of series.
In the 1686 paper as well as in subsequent papers,ls Leibniz gave the
differentials of the logarithmic and exponential functions and recognized
exponential functions as a class. He also treated curvature, the osculating
circle, and the theory of envelopes (see Chap. 23). In a letter to John
Bernoulli of 1697, he differentiated under the integral sign with respect to a
parameter. He also had the idea that many indefinite integrals could be
evaluated by reducing them to known forms and speaks of preparing tables
for such reductions-in other words, a table of integrals. He tried to define
the higher-order differentials swch as ddy (d2g) and dddy (dsy), but the defini-
tions were not satisfactory. Though he did not succeed, he also tried to find
a meaning for d"y where c is any real number.
With respect to notation, Leibniz worked painstakingly to achieve the
best. His dx, dy, and dyldx are, of course, still standard. He introduced the
notation log x, dn for the zth differential, and even d-L and d-" for t and,
the zth iteration of summation, respectively.
In general Leibniz's work, though richly suggestive and profound, was
so incomplete and fragmentary that it was barely intelligible. Fortunately,
the Bernoulli brothers, James and John, who were immensely impressed and
stirred by Leibniz's ideas, elaborated his sketchy papers and contributed an
immense number of new developments we shall discuss later. Leibniz agreed
that the calculus was as much theirs as his.
5. A Comparison of Newton and Leibniz

olf the Work
Both Newton and Leibniz must be credited with seeing the calculus as a
new and general method, applicable to many types of functions. After their
work, the calculus was no longer an appendage and extension of Greek
geometry, but an independent science capable of handling a vastly expanded
range of problems.
14. Acta Etud.,5, 1686, 292-300 :
Math. SchiJten, 5, 226-33.
15. Acta Erud., 1692, 168-71 : Math. Schrifien, 5, 266-69; Acta Erud., 1694 : Math.
Schiften, 5, 301-6.
.WORK OF NEWTON AND LEIBNIZ
COMPARISON OF THE 379
Both also arithmetized the calculus; that is, they built on algebraic
concepts. The algebraic notation and techniques used by Newton and Leib-
niz not only gave them a more effective tool than geometry, but also per-
mitted many diff.."t t geometric and physical problems to be treated by the
same technique. A major change from the beginning to the end of the
seventeenth century was the algebraicization of the calculus' This is com-
parable to what vieta had done in the theory ofequations and Descartes and
Fermat in geometry.
The third vital contribution that Newton and Leibniz share is the
reduction to antidifierentiation of area, volume, and other problems that
were previously treated as summations. Thus the four main problems-
rates, tangents, maxima and minima, and summation-were all reduced to
differentiation and antidifferentiation.
The chid distinction between the work of the two men is that Newton
used the infinitely small increments in .r and y as a means of determining
the fluxion or derivative. It was essentially the limit of the ratio of the in-
crements as they became smaller and smaller. On the other hand, Leibniz
dealt directly with the infinitely small increments in r and y, that is, with
differentials, and determined the relationship between them. This difference
reflects Newton's physical orientation, in which a concePt such as velocity is
central, and Leibniz's philosophical concern with ultimate particles of
matter, which he called monads. As a consequence, Newton solved area and
volume problems by thinking entirely in terms of rate of change' For him
differentiation was basic; this process and its inverse solved all calculus
problems,
-center
and in fact the use of summation to obtain an area, volume, or
of gravity rarely apPears in his work. Leibniz, on the other hand'
thought first in terms of summation, though of course these sums were
evaluated by antidifferentiation.
A third distinction between the work of the two men lies in Newton's
free use of series to represent functions; Leibniz preferred the closed form.
In a letter to Leibniz of 1676, Newton stressed the use ol series even to solve
simple differential equations. Though Leibniz did use infinite series, he
repliied that the real goal should be to obtain results in finite terms, using the
trigonometric and logarithmic functions where algebraic functions would
,rot ...r". He recalled to Newton James Gregory's assertion that the rectifi-
cation ol the ellipse and hyperbola could not be reduced to the circular and
logarithmic functions and challenged Newton to determine by the use of
series whether Gregory was correct. Newton replied that by the use of series
he could decide whether some integrations could be achieved in finite terms,
but gave no criteria. Again, in a letter of l7l2 to John Bernoulli, Leibniz
objected to the expansion offunctions into series and stated that the calculus
should be concerned with reducing its results to quadratures (integrations)
and, where necessary, quadratures involving transcendental functions'
38o rrrE 0REATToN oF TrrE cALcuLUs
There are differences in their manner of working. Newton was empirical,

concrete, and circumspect, whereas Leibniz was speculative, given to gener-
alizations, and bold. Leibniz was more concerned with operational formulas
to produce a calculus in the broad sense; for example, rules for the dif-
ferential of a product or quotient ol functions, his rule for d" (ua) (u and zt
being functions ofx), and a table of integrals. It was Leibniz who set the
canons of the calculus, the system of rules and formulas. Newton did not
bother to formulate rules, even when he could easily have generalized his
concrete results. He kncw that if z : uu, tl;cr I : uil I ail, but did not point
out this general result. Though Newton initiated many methods, he did not
stress them. His magnificent applications of the calculus not only demon-
strated its value but, far more than Leibniz's work, stimulated and deter-
mined almost the entire direction of eighteenth-century analysis. Newton
and Leibniz differed also in their concern for notation. Newton attached no
importance to this matter, while Leibniz spent days choosing a suggestive
notation.
6. The Controaersg oaer Priority

Nothing of Newton's work on the calculus was published before 1687,
though he had communicated results to friends during the years 1665 to
1687. In particular, he had sent his tract De Analysi. in 1669 to Barrow, who
had sent it toJohn Collins. Leibniz visited Paris in 1672 and London in 1673
and communicated with some of the people who knew Newton's work.
However, he did not publish on the calculus until 1684. Hence the question
of whether Leibniz had known the details of what Newton did was raised,
and Leibniz was accused of plagiarism. However, investigations made long
after the deaths of the two men show that Leibniz was an independent
inventor of major ideas of the calculus, though Newton did much of his work
before Leibniz did. Both owe much to Barrow, though Barrow used geo-
metrical methods almost exclusively. The significance of the controversy lies
not in the question of who was the victor but rather in the fact that the
mathematicians took sides. The Continental mathematicians, the Bernoulli
brothers in particular, sided with Leibniz, while the English mathematicians
defended Newton. The two groups became unfriendly and even bitter toward
each other; John Bernoulli went so far as to ridicule and inveigh against
the English.
As a result, the English and Continental mathematicians ceased ex-
changing ideas. Because Newton's major work and first publication on the
calculus, the Principia, used geometrical methods, the English continued to
use mainly geometry for about a hundred years after his death. The Conti
nentals took up Leibniz's analytical methods and extended and improved
them. These proved to be far more effective; so not only did the English
soME TMMEDIATE ADDITTONS TO THE CALCULUS 3Br
mathematicians fall behind, but mathematics was deprived of contributions

that some of the ablest minds might have made.
7. Some Immediate Additions to the Calculus

The calculus is of course the beginning of that most weighty part of mathe-
matics generally referred to as analysis. We shall be following the important
developments of this field in succeeding chapters; we might note here, how-
ever, some additions that were made immediately after the basic work of
Newton and Leibniz.
ln his Arithmetica [Jniaersalis ( I 707) Newton established a theorem on the
upper bound to the real roots of polynomial equations. The theorem says:
A number a is an upper bound of the real roots ofrf(,t) : 0 if, when a is
substituted for x, it gives to;f(*) and to all its derivatives the same sign'
In his De Analysi. and Method of Fluxions, he gave a general method of
approximating the roots of fQc) : 0, which was published in Wallis's
Algebra of 1685. In his tract Analgsis Aequationum Unioersalis (1690), Joseph
Raphson (164S-1715) improved on this method; though he applied it only
to polynomials, it is much more broadly useful. It is this modification that is
now known as Newton's method or the Newton-Raphson method' It consists
in first choosing an approximation a. Then calculate a - f (a) lf ' (a) ' Call
this D, and calculate b - f (b) lf '(b). Call this last result c, and so forth' The
numbers a, b, cr. .. are successive approximations to the root' (The notation
is modern.) Actually the method does not necessarily give better and better
approximations to the root. J. Raymond Mourraille showed in 1768 that a
must be chosen so that the curve ofy : "f(r) i. convex toward the axis ofr
in the interval between a and the root. Much later Fourier discovered this
fact independently.
In his Dimonstration d'une mithode pour risoudre les igalit'ez de tous lcs digre z
(16191), Michel Rolle (1652-1719) gave the famous theorem now named
after him, namely, that if a function is 0 at two values of x, say, a and b,
then the derivative is 0 at some value of x between a and b. Rolle stated the
theorem but did not prove it.
After Newton and Leibniz the two most important founders of the
calculus were the Bernoulli brothers, James and John. James (:
Jakob :
Jacques) Bernoulli ( 1655-1 705) was self-taught in mathematics and
so
matured slowly in that subject. At the urging of his father he studied for the
ministry, but eventually turned to mathematics, and in 1686 became a
professor at the University of Basle. His chief interests thereafter were mathe-
matics and astronomy. When, in the late 1670s, he began to work on
mathematical problems, Newton's and Leibniz's work was still unknown to
him. He too learned from Descartes's La Giomitrie, Wallis's Arithmetica
hlfinitorum and Barrow's Geometrical Lectures. Though he took much from
382 TIIE CREATION OF TIIE CALCULUS
Barrow, he put it into analytical form. He gradually became familiar with

Leibniz's work, but because so little of the latter appeared in print, much of
what James did overlapped Leibniz's results. Actually he, like the other
mathematicians of the time, did not fully understand Leibniz's work.
James's activity is closely linked with that of his younger brother John
(: Johann : Jean, 1667-1748). John was sent into business by his father
but turned to medicine, while learning mathematics from his brother. He
became a professor of mathematics at Groningen in Holland and then
succeeded his brother at Basle.
Both James and John corresponded constantly with Leibniz, Huygens,
other mathematicians, and each other. All these men worked on many
common problems suggested in letters or posed as challenges. Since results,
too, were in those days often communicated in letters with or without sub-
sequent publication, the matter of priority is complicated. Sometimes credit
was claimed for a result that \ /as announced even though no proof was
given at that time. The question is further complicated by the peculiar
relationships that developed. John was extremely anxious to secure fame and
began to compete with his brother; soon each was challenging the other on
problems. John did not hesitate to use unscrupulous means to appear to be
the discoverer of results he got from others, including his brother. James was
very sensitive and reacted in kind. Each published papers that owed much
to the other without acknowledging the origins of their ideas. John actually
became a vitriolic critic of his brother, and Leibniz tried to mediate between
the two. Though James had said earlier, while praising Barrow, that Leib-
niz's work should not be depreciated, he became more and more distrustful
of Leibniz. Moreover, he resented Leibniz's superior insights and thought
Leibniz was arrogant in pointing out that he had done things James thought
were original with himself. He became convinced that Leibniz sought only
to belittle his work and was favoring John in the disputes between the
brothers. When Nicholas Fatio de Duillier (1664-1753) gave {ewton credit
for creating the calculus and became embroiled in controversy with Leibniz,
James wrote letters to Fatio opposing Leibniz.
As to the Bernoullis' work in the calculus, they, too, tackled problems
such as finding the curvature ofcurves, evolutes (envelopes ofthe normals to
a curve), inflection points, the rectification ofcurves, and other basic calculus
topics. The results of Newton and Leibniz were extended to spirals of various
sorts, the catenary, and the tractrix, which was defined as the curve (Fig.
1 7.20) for which the ratio PT to O 7 is a constant.
James also wrote five
major papers on series (Chap. 20, sec. 4), which extended Newton's use of
series to integrate complicated algebraic functions and transcendental
functions. In 1691 both James and John gave the formula for the radius of
curvature ofa curve. James called it his "golden theorern " and wrote it as
z : dx tb:ddg : dg ds:ddx
THE SOUNDNESS OF TI{E CALCULUS 383
Figure 17.20
where z is the radius of curvature. If we divide numerator and denominator

of each ratio by /s2 we get
z
dxlds dslds
: 7\i&:l-xtds,'
which are more llamiliar forms. James also gave the result in polar coordi
nates, I
John produced a now-famous theorem for obtaining the limit approached
by a fraction whose numerator and denominator approach 0. This theorem
was incorporated by Guillaume F. A. I'Hospital (1661-1704), a pupil of
pctits
John, in an influential book on the calculus, the Analyse cbs irfinhrunt
(1696), and is now known as L'Hospital's rule.
B. The Soundness of the Calculus

From the very introduction of the new methods of finding rates, tangents,
maxima and minima, and so forth, the proofs were attacked as unsound.
Cavalieri's use of indivisible ultimate elements and his arguments shocked
those who still respected logical rigor. To their criticism Cavalieri responded
that the contemporary geometers had been freer with logic than he-for
example, Kepler, in his Stereometria Doliorum. These geometers, he continued,
had been content in their calculation of areas to imitate Archimedes' method
of summing lines, but had failed to give the complete proofs that the great
Greek had used to make his work rigorous. They were satisfied with their
calculations, provided only that the results were useful' Cavalieri felt justi-
fied in adopting the same point of view. He said that his procedures could
lead to new inventions and that his method did not at all oblige one to
consider a geometrical structure as composed of an infinite number of
sectionsl it had no other object than to establish correct ratios between areas
or volumes. But these ratios preserved their sense and value whatever opinion
one might have about the composition of a continuum. In any case, said
Cavalieri, " rigor is the concern of philosophy and not of geometry."
Fermat, Pascal, and Barrow recognized the looseness of their work on
summation but believed that one could make precise proofs in the manner of
Archimedes. Pascal, in Lettert of Dettonuille (1659), affirmed that the in-
finitesimal geometry and classical Greek geometry were in agreement. He
ZB4 THE CREATToN oF THE cALcuLUs
concluded, "What is demonstrated by the true rules of indivisibles could be

demonstrated also with the rigor and the manner of the ancients." Further,
he said the method of indivisibles must be accepted by any mathematicians
who pretend to rank among geometers. It differs only in language from the
method of the ancients. Nevertheless, Pascal, too, had ambivalent feelings
about rigor. At times he argued that the heart intervenes to assure us of the
correctness ol mathematical steps. The proper "finesse," rather than geo-
metrical logic, is what is needed to do the correct work, just as the religious
appreciation of grace is above reason. The paradoxes of geometry as used in
the calculus are like the apparent absurdities of Christianity; and the indi-
visible in geometry has the same relation to the finite as man's justice has to
God's.
The defenses Cavalieri and Pascal offered applied to the summation of
infinitely small quantities. As to the derivative, early workers such as Fermat
and Roberval thought they had a simple algebraic process that had a very
clear geometric interpretation and so could be justified by geometrical
arguments. Actually Fermat was careful not to assert general theorems when
he advanced any idea he could not justify by the method of exhaustion.
Barrow argued only geometrically and, despite his attacks on the algebraists
for their lack of rigor, was less scrupulous about the soundness of his geo-
metrical arguments.
Neither Newton nor Leibniz clearly understood nor rigorously defined
his fundamental concepts. We have already observed that both vacillated in
their de6nitions of the derivative and differentials. Newton did not really
believe that he had departed from Greek geometry. Though he used algebra
and coordinate geometry, which were not to his taste, he thought his under-
lying methods were but natural extensions of pure geometry. Leibniz, how-
ever, was a man of vision who thought in broad terms, like Descartes. He saw
the long-term implications of the new ideas and did not hesitate to declare
that a new science was coming to light. Hence he was not too concerned
about the lack of rigor in the calculus.
In response to criticism olhis ideas, Leibniz made various, unsatisfactory
replies. In a letter to Wallis of fiarch 30, 169016 he said:
It is useful to consider quantities infinitely small such that when their

ratio is sought, they may not be considered zero but which are rejected as
often as they occur with quantities incomparably greater. Thus if we have
x * dx, dx is rejected. But it is different if we seek the difference between
s + dz and x. Similarly we cannot have x dx and dx dx standing together.
Hence if we are to differentiate 4y we write (x + dx) (y + dy) - xy :
x dy I g d.x * dx dy. But here dx dg is to be rejected as incomparably less
than x dg -l y /x. Thus in any particular case, the error is less than any
finite quantity.
16. Leibniz: Math. Schriften, 4, 63.
THE souNDNEss oF THE cALcuLUs 385
As to the ultimate meani ngs of dg, dx and dg ldx, Leibniz remained vague'
He spoke ofldr as the difference in x values between two infinitely near points
u.rd tf th. tangent as the line joining such points. He dropped differentials
of higher ordei with no justification, though he did distinguish among the
vario-us orders. The infinitely small d* and dg were sometimes described as
vanishing or incipient quantities, as opposed to quantities already formed'
These indefinitety small quantities were not zero, but were smaller than any
finite quantity. Alternatively he appealed to Beometry to say that a higher
differential is to a lower one as a point is to a linel? ot that dx is to * as a
point to the earth or as the radius of the earth to that of the heavens. The
iatio of two infinitesimals he thought of as a quotient of inassignables or of
indefinitely small quantities, but one which could nevertheless be expressed
in terms of definite quantities such as the ratio of ordinate to subtangent.
A flurry of atta&s and rebuttals was initiated in books of 1694 and 1695
by the Dutch physician and geometer Bernard Nieuwentijdt (1654-17t B) '
Aithough he uimitted that in general the new methods led to correct results,
he criticired the obscurity and pointed out that sometimes the methods led
to absurdities. He complained that he could not understand how the infinitely
small quantities differed from zero and asked how a sum of infinitesimals
could be finite. He also challenged the meaning and existence of differentials
of higher order and the rejection of infinitely small quantities in portions of
the arguments.
L.ib.rir, in a draft of a reply to Nieuwentijdt, probably written in 1695,
and in an article in the Acta Eruditorum of 1695,18 gives various answers' He
speaks of overprecise,' critics and says that excessive scrupulousness should
,.
,lot us to ieject the fruits of invention. He then says his method differs
"ur..
from Archimedes; only in the expressions used, but that his own are better
adapted to the art of discovery. The words "infinite" and "infinitesimal"
signify merely quantities that one can take as large or as small as one wishes
in order to show that the error incurred is less than any number that can be
assigned-in other words, that there is no error, one can use these ultimate
thiJgs-that is, infinite and infinitely small quantities-as a tool, much as
algebraists used imaginary roots with great profit'
Leibniz's argument thus far was that his calculus used only ordinary
mathematical concepts. But since he could not satisfy his critics, he enun-
ciated a philosophical principle known as the law of continuity, which was
practicaliy the same as one already stated by Kepler' In 1687, in a letter to
iierre Bayle,le Leibniz expressed this principle as follows: " In any supposed
transition, ending in any terminus, it is permissible to institute a general
reasoning, in which the final terminus may also be included'" To support
17. Math. Schriften, 5, 322 ff.
18, Acta bud., 1695, 310-16 : Math. Schriftetr, 5, 320-28'
19. Math. SchriJten, 5' 385.
386 TIIE CREATION OF THB CALCULUS
Figurc 17.21
this principle he gives, in an unpublished manuscript of about 1695, the

example ofincluding under one argument ellipses and parabolas, though the
parabola is a limiting case of the ellipse when one focus moves offto infinity.
He tlren applies the principle to the calculation of dy:dx for the parabola
I : *la. After obtaining
dg:d*-(2x*dx):a,
he says, "Now, since by our postulate it is permissible to include under the
one general reasoning the case also in which [Fig. 17.21] the ordinate *2y2 is
moved up nearer and nearer to the fixed ordinate *ry1 until it ultimately
coincides with it, it is evident that in this case dx becomes equal to 0 and
should be neglected...." Leibniz does not say what meaning should be
given to the dx that apPears at the left side of the equation.
Of course, he says, things that are absolutely equal have a difierence
that is absolutely nothing; therefore a parabola is not an ellipse'
Yet a state of transition may be imagined, or one of evanescence, in
which indeed there has not yet arisen exact equality or ret.... but in
which it is passing into such a state that the difference is less than any
assignable quantity; also that in this state there will still remain some
difference, some velocity, some angle, but in each case one that is
infinitelysmall....
For the present, whether such a state of instantaneous transition
from inequality to equality ... can be sustained in a rigorous or meta-
physical sense, or whether infinite extensions successively Sreater and
greater, or infinitely small ones successively less and less, are legitimate
considerations, is a matter that I own to be possibly open to question. . ' '
It will be sufficient if, when we speak of infinitely great (or, more
strictly, unlimited) or of infinitely small quantities (i.e., the very least of
those within our knowledge), it is understood that we mean quantities
that are indefinitely great or indefinitely small, i.c.' as grcat as you
please, or as small as you please, so that the error that any one may assign
may be less than a certain assigned quantity'
TI{E SOT'NDNESS OF TIIE CALCULUS 387
On these suppositions, all the rules ofour algorithm, as set out in the
Acta Eruditorum for October 1684, can be proved without much trouble'
Leibniz then goes over these rules. He introduces the quantities (d)y and
(d)x and carries out the usual processes of differentiation with them. These
he calls assignable or definite nonvanishing quantities. After obtaining the
final result, he says, we can replace (d)y and (d)x by the evanescent or un-
assignable quantities dy and, dx, by making "the supposition that the ratio of
the evanescent quantities dy and dx is equal to the ratio of (d)g and (d)x'
because this supposition can always be reduced to an undoubtable truth"'
Leibniz's principle of continuity is certainly not a mathematical axiom
today, but he emphasized it and it became important later. He gave many
arguments that are in accordance with this principle. For example, in a
letter to Wallis,2o Leibniz defended his use of the characteristic triangle as a
form without magnitude, the form remaining after the magnitudes had been
reduced to zeto, and challengingly asked, "Who does not admit a form
without magnitude ? " Likewise, in a letter to Guido Grandi,zl he said the
infinitely small is not a simple and absolute zero but a relative zero, that is,
an evanescent quantity which yet retains the character of that which is dis-
appearing. However, Leibniz also said, at other times, that he did not
believe in magnitudes truly infinite or truly infinitesimal.
Leibniz, less concerned with the ultimate justification of his procedures
than Newton, felt that it lay in their effectiveness. He stressed the procedural
or algorithmic value of what he had created. Somehow he had confidence
that if he formulated clearly the rules of operation and these were proPerly
applied, reasonable and correct results would be obtained, however doubtful
might be the meanings of the symbols involved.
It is apparent that neither Newton nor Leibniz succeeded in making
clear, let alone precise, the basic concepts ofthe calculus: the derivative and
the integral. Not being able to grasp these properly, they relied upon the
coherence of the results and the fecundity of the methods to push ahead
without rigor.
Several examples may illustrate the lack of clarity even among the great
immediate successors of Newton and Leibniz. John Bernoulli wrote the first
text on the calculus in 169l and 1692. The portion on the integral calculus
was published in 1742;22 the Part on the differential calculus, Die Dffirential'
rechiung, was not published until 1924. However, the Marquis de l'Hospital
did publish a slightly altered French version (already referred to) under his
own name in 1696. Bernoulli begins the Diferentialrechnung with three Postu-
lates. The first reads: "A quantity which is diminished or increased by an
20. Math. Schri'ften, 4' 54.

21. Math. Schifun, 4,218.
22. OPera Omnia, 3,385-558.
infinitely small quantity is neither increased nor decreased." His second

postulate is : " Each curved line consists of infinitely many straight lines,
these themselves being infinitely small." In his reasoning he followed Leibniz
and used infinitesimals. Thus to obtain dg lrom g : x2, he uses e for dx and
gets (r * e)' - x', or 2xe * e2, and thenjust drops e2. Like Leibniz, he used
vague analogies to explain what differentials were. Thus, he says, the in-
finitely large quantities are like astronomical distances and the infinitely
small are like animalcules revealed by the microscope. In 1698 he argued
that infinitesimals must exist.28 One has only to consider the infinite series
l,l12, 114,. . .. If one takes l0 terms, then l/10 exists; if one takes 100 terms,
then l/100 exists. Corresponding to the infinite number of terms there is the
infinitesimal.
A few men, Wallis andJohn Bernoulli among them, tried to define the
infinitesimal as the reciprocal of co, the latter being a definite number to
them. Still others acted as though what was incomprehensible needed no
further explanation. For most of the seventeenth-century men, rigor was not
a matter of concern. What they often said could be rigorized by the method
of Archimedes could actually not have been rigorized by an Archimedes;
this is particularly true of the work on differentiation; which had no parallel
in Greek mathematics.
Actually the new calculus was introducing concepts and methods that
inaugurated a radical departure from earlier work. With the work of Newton
and Leibniz, the calculus became a totally new discipline that required
foundations of its or^/n. Though they were not fully aware of it, the mathe-
maticians had turned their backs on the past.
Germs ofthe correct new concepts can be found even in the seventeenth-
century literature. Wallis, in the Arithmetica Infinitorum, advanced the arith-
metical concept of the limit of a function as a number approached by the
function so that the difference between this number and the function could
be made less than any assignable quantity and would vanish ultimately
when the process was continued to infinity. His wording is loose but contains
the right idea.
James Gregory in his Vera Circuli et Hyperbolae Quadratura (1667) ex-
plicitly pointed out that the methods used to obtain areas, volumes, and
lengths of curves involved a new process, the Iimit process. Moreover, he
added, this operation was distinct from the five algebraic operations of
addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and exEaction of roots. He
put the method of exhaustion into algebraic form and recognized that the
successive approximations obtained by using rectilinear figures circumscribed
about a given area or volume and those obtained by using inscribed recti-
linear figures both converged to the same "last term." He also noted that
23. Leibniz: Math. Schiften,3, Part 2, 563 ff.

BIBLIoGRAPIIY 389
this limit process yields irrationals not obtainable as roots of rationals. But
these insights of Wallis and Gregory were ignored in their century.
The foundations of the calculus remained unclear. Adding to the con-
fusion was the fact that the proPonents of Newton's work continued to speak
of prime and ultimate ratios, while the followers of Leibniz used the in-
finitely small non-zero quantities. Many of the English mathematicians,
perhaps because they were in the main still tied to the rigor of Greek geom-
etry, distrusted all the work on the calculus. Thus the century ended with
the calculus in a muddled state.
Bibliography
Armitage, A.: Edmond Halley, Thonr'as Nelson and Sons, 1966'
Auger, L.: {Jn Saaant miconnu: Gilles Personz de Roberaal (1602-1675), A' Blanchard,
1962.
Ball, W. W. R. : I Short Account of ttu History of Matlumatits, Dover (reprint), 1960,
pp. 309-70.
Baron, Margaret E.z The Origins of the Infinitesimal Calculnr, Pergamon Press, 1969'
Bell, Arthur E.: Neutoni.an Scizrce, Ddward Arnold, 1961.
Boyer, Carl B.: The Coneepts of the Caleulus, Dover (reprint), 1949'
A History oJ Mattumatics, John Wiley and Sons, 1968, Chaps' 18-19'
Brewster, David; Memoirs of the Life, lrritings and Discoaetits of Sir Isau Newtan,
2 vols., 1855, Johnson Reprint Corp., 1965.
Cajori, Florian: A History of the Coneeptions of Lini* and Fluxions in Great Bitain
.1from Newlon to Woodhouse, Open Court, 1919.
A History oJ Mathematics, Macrnillan, 1919, 2nd ed., pp' l8l-220'
Cantor, Moritz: Vorlesungen iiber Geschichte der Mathematik,2nd ed., B' G' Teubner,
1900 and 1898, Vol. 2, pp.82l-922; Vol. 3, pp. 150-316'
Child, J. M.: The Gnmetri.cal Lcctures of Isaac Banow, Open Court, 1916'
The Early Mathematical Manuscipts of Leibniz, Open Court, 1920'
Cohen, I. B.: Isaac Newlon's Palers and l*lters on Natural Phihsophy, Harvard Uni-
-: versity Press, 1958.
Coolidge, Julian L. : The Mathematics of Great Amatcurs, Dover (reprint), 1963,
Chaps. 7, ll, and 12.
De Morgan, Augustus: Essays on the Life and Work of Neuton, Open Court, l9l4'
Fermat, Pierre d,e: (Euarcs, Gauthier-Villars, 189l-1912, Vol. I' pp' 133-79,
Vol. 3, pp. 12l-56.
Gibson, G. A. : "James Gregory's Mathematical Work," Proc. Edinbwgh Math'
Soc., 41, 1922123, 2-25.
Huygens, C.: CEuores comphtes,22 vols., Soci6t6 Hollandaise des Sciences' Nyhoff
1888-1950.
Leibniz, G. W.t (Euurcs, Firmin-Didot, 1859-75.
Malhematische Schriften, ed. C. I. Gerhardt, 7 vols., Ascher-Schmidt,
1849-63. Reprinted by Georg Olms, 1962.
More, Louis T.: Isaac Newtan, Dovet (reprint), 1962.
3go THE CREATION OF THE CALCULUS
Montucla, J. F,: Histoire fus mathimatiques, Albert Blanchard (reprint), 1960, Vol. 2,
pp. 102-77,34A4O3; Vol.3, pp. 102-38.
Newton, Sir Isaac: Tlu Mathematical Works, ed. D. T. Whiteside, 2 vols., Johnson
Reprint Corp., 196,1-67, Vol. I contains translations of the three basic
PaPenr on the calculus.
Matlumatical Papcrs, ed. D. T. Whiteside, 4 vols., Cambridge University
Press, 1967-71.
Mathematical Principles of Natural Phi.lcsophg, ed. Florian Cajori, 3rd ed.,
University of California Press, 1946.
-: Opticks, Dover (reprint), 1952,
Pascal, B.: (Eut H^chette, 1914-21.
es,
Scott,
-: Joseph F.: Tlu Matlumatical Work oJ John Wallis, Oxford University Press,
1938.
A Histary of Mathcmalics, Taylor and Francis, 1958, Chaps, 10-l l.
Smith, D. E.: A Source Book in Mathematics, Dover (reprint), 1959, pp. 605-26,
Struik, D. J.: A Source Book in Matlumatics, 1200-1800, Ilarvard IJniversity Press,
1969, pp. 188-316, 32,1-28.
Thayer, H, S.: Newton's Philosophy of Nature, Hafner, 1953.
Turnbull, H. W.: Thc Mathematical Discoueries of Newtan, Blackie and Son, 1945.
.............._: Jarnes Gregory Terccntenary Mcmorial Volume, Royal Society of Edinburgh,
1939.
Turnbull, H. W. andJ. F, Scott: The Coneslondence of Isaac Newtnn,4 vols., Cam-
bridge University Press, 1959-1967.
Walker, Evelyn: I Study of the Traift des indivisibles of Gilles Personz de Robertal,
Columbia University Press, 1932.
Wallis, John: Opra Mathematiea, 3 vols., 1693-99, Georg Olms (reprint), 1968.
Whiteside, Derek T. : " Patterns of Mathematical Thought in the Seventeenth
Century," Archiae for History of Exact Sciences, l, 1961, pp. 179-388.
Wolf, Abraham: A History oJ Science, Technology and Philosophg in the 16th and ITth
Cenluics,2nd ed., George Allen and Unwin, 1950, Chaps. 7-14.
IB
Mathematics as of r1oo
Those few things having been considered, the whole matter rs

reduced to pure geometry, which is the one aim of physics
and mechanics. G. W. LEIBNIZ
L The Transformation of Mathematics

At the opening of the seventeenth century Galileo still found it necessary to
argue with the past. By the end ofthe century, mathematics had undergone
such extensive and radical changes that no one could fail to recognize the
arrival of a new era.
The European mathematicians produced far more between about 1550
and 1700 than the Greeks had in roughly ten centuries. This is readily
explained by the fact that, whereas mathematics in Greece was pursued by
only a handful of men, in Europe the spread of education, though by no
means universal, promoted the development of mathematicians in England,
France, Germany, Holland, and Italy. The invention of printing gave wide
access not only to the Greek works but to the results ofthe Europeans them-
selves, which, now readily available, served to stimulate new thoughts.
But the genius of the century is not evidenced solely by the expansion
of activity. The variety of new fields opened up in this brief period is im-
pressive. The rise ofalgebra as a science (because the use ofliteral coefficients
permitted a measure of proof ) as well as the vast expansion of its methods
and theory, the beginnings of projective geometry and the theory of prob-
ability, analytic geometry, the function concept, and above all the calculus
were major innovations, each destined to dwarf the one extensive accom-
plishment of the Greeks-Euclidean geometry.
Beyond the quantitative expansion and the new avenues of exploration
was the complete reversal of the roles of algebra and geometry. The Greeks
had favored geometry because it was the only way they could achieve rigor;
and even in the seventeenth century, mathematicians felt obliged to justify
algebraic methods with geometrical proofs. One could say that up to 1600
the body of mathematics was geometrical, with some algebraic and trigono-
metric appendages. After the work of Descartes, Fermat, and Wallis, algebra
39r
392 MATHEMATTCS AS OF rTOO
became not only an effective methodology for its own ends but also the
superior approach to the solution of geometric problems. The greater effec-
tiveness of analytical methods in the calculus decided the competition, and
algebra became the dominant substance of mathematics.
It was Wallis and Newton who saw clearly that algebra provided the
superior methodology. Unlike Descartes, who regarded algebra asjust tech-
nique, Wallis and Newton realized that it was vital subject matter. The work
of, Desargues, Pascal, and La Hire was depreciated and forgotten, and the
geometric methods of Cavalieri, Gregory of Saint Vincent, Huygens, and
Barrow were superseded. Pure geometry was eclipsed for about a hundred
years, becoming at best an interpretation ofalgebra and a guide to algebraic
thinking through coordinate geometry. It is true that excessive reverence for
Newton's geometrical work in the Principia, reinforced by the enmity against
the Continental mathematicians engendered by the dispute between Newton
and Leibniz, caused the English mathematicians to persist in the geometrical
development of the calculus. But their contributions were trivial compared
to what the Continentals were able to achieve using the analytical approach.
What was evident by 1700 was explicitly stated by no less an authority than
Euler, who, in his Introductio in Analgsin Infnitorurn (1748), praises algebra as
far superior to the synthetic methods of the Greeks.
It was with great reluctance that mathematicians abandoned the geo-
metric approach. According to Henry Pemberton (169+-1771), who edited
the third edition of Newton's Principia, Newton not only constantly expressed
great admiration for the geometers of Greece but censured himself for not
following them more closely than he did. In a letter to David Gregory
(1661-1708), a nephew ofJames Gregory, Newton remarked that " algebra
is the analysis of the bunglers in mathematics." But his own Arithmetica
Unilersalis of 1707 did as much as any single work to establish the supremacy
of algebra. Here he set up arithmetic and algebra as the basic science,
allowing geometry only where it made demonstrations easier. Leibniz, too,
noted the growing dominance of algebra and felt obliged to say, in an un-
published essay,l " Often the Beometers could demonstrate in a few words
what is very Iengthy in the calculus . . . the view of algebra is assured, but it
is not better."
Another, more subtle, change in the nature of mathematics had been
unconsciously accepted by the masters. Up to 1550 the concepts of mathe-
matics were immediate idealizations of or abstractions from experience. By
that time negative and irrational numbers had made their appearance and
were gradually gaining acceptance. When, in addition, complex numbers,
an extensive algebra employing literal coefficients, and the notions of deriva-
tive and integral entered mathematics, the subject became dominated by
L Couturat, L.: Opuscules et Jfragments inidits de Leibniz, 1903, reprinted by Georg Olms,
1961, p. l8l.
THE TRANSFORMATION OF MATIIEMATICS 393
concepts derived from the recesses of human minds. The notion of an

instantaneous rate of change, in particular, though of course having some
intuitive base in the physical phenomenon ol velocity, is nevertheless far
more ofan intellectual construct and is also an entirely different contribution
qualitatively than the mathematical triangle. Beyond these ideas, infinitely
large quantities, which the Greeks had studiously avoided, and infinitely
small ones, which the Greeks had skillfully circumvented, had to be contended
with.
In other words, mathematicians were contributing concepts, rather than
abstracting ideas from the real world. Nevertheless, these concepts were
useful in physical investigations because (with the exception of complex
numbers, which had yet to prove their worth) they had some ties to physical
reality. Of course the Europeans were uneasy about the new types of num-
bers and the calculus notions without really discerning the cause of their
concern. Yet as these concepts proved more and more useful in aPplications,
they were at first grudgingly and later passively accepted. Familiarity bred
not contempt but acceptability and even naturalness. After I 700, more and
more notions, further removed from nature and springing full-blown from
human minds, were to enter mathematics and be accepted with fewer
qualms. For the genesis of its ideas mathematics gradually turned from the
sensory to the intellectual faculties.
The incorporation ofthe calculus into the body of mathematics effected
another change, in the very concept of mathematics, that subverted the ideal
fashioned by the classical Greeks. We have already noted that the rise of
algebra and the calculus introduced the problem of the logical foundations
oith..e portions of mathematics and that this problem was not resolved'
Throughout the century some mathematicians were upset by the abandon-
ment o}proof in the deductive sense, but their protests were drowned in the
expanding content and use of algebra and the calculusl by the end of the
mathematicians had virtually dropped the requirement of clearly
".rrtr.y
defined concepts and deductive proof. Rigorous axiomatic construction gave
way to induction from particular examples, intuitive insights, loose geo-
metrical evidence, and physical arguments. Since deductive proof had been
the distinguishing feature ol mathematics, the mathematicians were thus
abandoning the hallmark of their subject.
In retrospect it is easy to see why they were forced into this position' As
long as mathematicians derived their concepts from immediate experience,
it was feasible to define the concepts and select the necessary axioms-
though, at that, the logical basis for the theory of the integers that Euclid
presented in Books vII to IX of the Elements was woefully deficient. But as
ihey introduced concepts that no longer idealized immediate experiences,
,r"ir u, the irrational, negative, and complex numbers and the derivative
and integral, they failed to recognize that these concePts were different in
394 MATHEMATTCS As oF rToo
character, and so failed to realize that a basis for the axiomatic development
other tJran self-evident truths was needed. It is true that the new concepts
were far more subtle than the old ones; and the proper axiomatic basis, as
we now know, could not have been readily erected.
How could critical mathematicians, well-versed in Greek mathematics,
have been content to operate on a heuristic basis ? They were concerned
with major and in some cases pressing problems of science, and the mathe-
matics they employed handled these problems. Rather than seeking full
comprehension of the new creations or trying to erect the requisite deductive
structure, they salved their consciences with their successes. An occasional
recourse to philosophical or mystical doctrines succeeded in cloaking some
difficulties so that they were no longer visible.
One new goal in particular characterizes the mathematics of the seven-
teenth and succeeding centuries-generality of methods and results. We have
already noted the value placed on generality of method by Vieta, in his
introduction of literal coefficients; by the projective geometers; by Fermat
and Descartes in the exploration of curvesl and by Newton and Leibniz in
the treatment of functions. As flar as generality of results is concerned, the
accomplishments were limited. Many were just affirmations, such as that
every polynomial equation of the nth degree has n roots, or that every equa-
tion of the second degree in ,r and y is a conic. Mathematical methods and
notation were still too limited to permit the establishment of general results,
but this became a goal of the mathematical efforts.
2. Matlumaths and Science

Since classical Greek times, mathematics had been valued primarily for its
role in the investigation of nature. Astronomy and music were constantly
linked to mathematics, and mechanics and optics were certainly mathe-
matical. However, the relationship of mathematics to science was altered in
several ways by the work of the seventeenth century. First of all, because
science, which was expanding enormously, had been directed by Galileo to
use quantitative axioms and mathematical deduction (Chap. 16, sec. 3), the
mathematical activity that was directly inspired by science became dominant.
Further, Galileo's injunction to seek mathematical description rather
than causal explanation led to the acceptance of such a concept as the force
of gravitation. This force and the laws of motion were the entire basis for
Newton's system of mechanics. Since the only sure knowledge of gravitation
was mathematical, mathematics became the substance of scientific theories.
The insurgent seventeenth century found a qualitative world whose study
was aided by mathematical abstractions and bequeathed a mathematical,
quantitative world that subsumed under its mathematical laws the con-
creteness of the physical world.
MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE 395
Third, while the Greeks had employed mathematics freely in their

science, there was, as long as the Euclidean basis sufficed for mathematics,
a sharp distinction between it and science. Both Plato and Aristotle dis-
tinguished the two (Chap. 3, sec. 10 and Chap. 7, sec. 3), albeit in differ'
ent ways clear about what is established
; and Archimedes is especially
mathematically and what is known physically. However, as the province of
mathematics expanded, and mathematicians not only relied upon physical
meanings to understand their concepts but accePted mathematical argu-
ments because they gave sound physical results, the boundary between
mathematics and science became blurred. Paradoxically, as science began to
rely more and more upon mathematics to produce its physical conclusions,
mathematics began to rely more and more upon scientific results to justify
its own procedures.
The upshot of this interdependence was a virtual fusion of mathematics
and vast areas ofscience. The compass of mathematics, as understood in the
seventeenth century, may be seen from the Cursus seu Mundus Matlwnatias
(The Course or the World of Mathematics) by Claude-Frangois Milliet
Deschales (1621-78), publishedin 1674 and in an enlarged edition in 1690.
Aside from arithmetic, trigonometry, and logarithms, he treats Practical
geometry, mechanics, statics, geography, magnetism, civil engineering,
carpentry, stonecutting, military construction, hydrostatics, fluid flow, hy-
draulics, ship construction, optics, perspective, music, the design offirearms
and cannons, the astrolabe, sundials, astronomy' calendar-reckoning, and
horoscopy. Finally, he includes algebra, the theory ofindivisibles, the theory
ofconics, and special curves such as the quadratrix and the spiral. This work
was popular and esteemed. Though in the inclusion of some toPics it reflects
Renaissance interests, on the whole it presents a reasonable picture of the
seventeenth- and even the eighteenth-century world of mathematics.
One might expect that the mathematicians would have been concerned
to preserve the identity of their subject. But beyond the fact that they were
obliged to depend upon physical meanings and results to ddend their ar-
guments, the greatest of the seventeenth- (and eighteenth-) century con-
tributors to mathematics were either primarily scientists or at least equally
concerned with both fields. Descartes, Huygens, and Newton, for example,
were far greater physicists than mathematicians. Pascal, Fermat, and Leibniz
were. active in physics. In fact, it would be difficult to name an outstanding
mathematician of the century who did not take a keen interest in science'
As a consequence these men did not wish or seek to make any distinctions
between the two fields. Descartes says in his Rulcs for tlu Direction oJ tlu Mind
that mathematics is the science of order and measure and includes, besides
algebra and geometry, astronomy, music, optics, and mechanics. Newton
says in the Priluipiat "In mathematics we are to investigate the quantities of
forces with their proportion consequent uPon any conditions supposed; then,
396 MATHEMATTCS AS OF rTOo
when we enter upon physics, we comPare those proportions with the phe-
nomena of Nature. . . . " Here physics relers to experimentation and obser-
vation. Newton's mathematics would be regarded as mathematical physics
today.
3. Communication Among Mathematicians

Up to about 1550, mathematics was created by individuals or small groups
headed by one or two prominent leaders. The results were communicated
orally and occasionally written up in texts-which, however, were manu-
scripts. Since copies had also to be made by hand, they were scarce' By the
seventeenth century printed books had become somewhat common, though
even this improvement did not spread knowledge as widely as might be
thought. Because the market for advanced mathematics was small, publishers
had to charge high prices. Good printers were scarce. Publication was often
followed by attacks on the authors from none-too-scrupulous opponents; it
was not hard for such critics to find grounds for attack, especially because
algebra and the calculus were not at all well grounded logically. Books in
any case were not usually the answer for new creations because significant
results did not warrant a book-sized publication.
As a consequence many mathematicians confined themselves to writing
letters to friends in which they related their discoveries. Fearing that the
letters would reach men who might take advantage of such unofficial docu-
ments, the writers often put their results in ciphers or anagrams, which they
could then decode when challenged.
As more men began to participate in mathematical creation, the desire
for exchange of information and for the stimulus of meeting people with the
same intellectual interests resulted in the formation of scientific societies or
academies. In 160l the Accademia dei Lincei (Academy of the Lynx-like)
was founded in Rome by young noblemen; it lasted thirty years. Galileo
became a member in 16l I . Another Italian society, the Accademia del
Cimento (Academy of Experiments) was lounded in Florence in 1657 as a
formal organization of men who had been meeting in a laboratory founded
by two members of the Medici family about ten years earlier. This academy
included Vincenzo Viviani (1622-1703) and Torricelli, both pupils of Galileo,
among its members. Unfortunately, the society was disbanded in 1667. In
France, Desargues, Descartes, Gassendi, Fermat, and Pascal, among others,
met privately under the leadership of Mersenne from 1630 on. This informal
group was chartered by Louis XIV as the Acad6mie Royale des Sciences in
1666, and its members were supported by the king' Paralleling what hap-
pened in France, an English group centered about John Wallis began in
1645 to hold meetings in Gresham College, London. These men emphasized
mathematics and astronomy. The group was given a formal charter by
CoMMUNTCATTON AMONG MATHEMATICIANS 397
Charles II in 1662 and adopted the name ofthe Royal Society ofLondon for
the Promotion of Natural Knowledge. This society was concerned with
putting mathematics and science to use and regarded dyeing, coinage,
gunnery, the refinement of metals, and population statistics as subjects of
interest. Finally, the Berlin Academy of Sciences, which Liebniz had advo-
cated for some years, was opened in 1700 with Leibniz as its first President.
In Russia, Peter the Great founded the Academy ofSciences ofSt. Petersburg
in 1724.
The academies were important, not only in making possible direct
contact and exchange of ideas, but because they also supported journals.
The first of the scientific journals, though not sponsored by an academy,
was the Journal dr Sgauans or Journal des Saoants, which began publication in
1665. This journal and the Philosophical Transadions of the Royal Sociely, which
began publication in the same year, were the first journals to include
mathematical and scientific articles. The French Acad6mie des Sciences ini-
tiated the publication Histoire de l'Acadimie Royale des Sciences attec les Mhnoircs
de Mathimatique et de Phgsique. It also published the Mhnoires dt Mathhnatique
et de Phgsique Prisentis d l'Acadhnie Rogale des Scierues par Diaers Sgattans et Lus
dans ses Assemblies, also known as tt,e Mirnoires des Sauants Etrangcrs. Another
of the early scientific journals, the Acta Eruditorum, was begun in 1682 and,
because it was published in Latin, soon acquired international readership.
The Berlin Academy of Sciences sponsored the Histoire de l'Acadhnit Royalc das
Seiences et Belles-lettres (whose title for some years was the Miscellawa
Berolinensia).
The academies and their journals opened new outlets for scientific
communication; these and later journals became the accepted medium for
publication ofnew research. The academies furthered research in that most
of them supported scientists. For example, Euler was supported by the
Berlin Academy from l74l to 1766 and Lagrange from 1766 to 1787. The
St. Petersburg Academy supported Daniel and Nicholas Bernoulli at various
times, and Euler from 1727 to l74l and again from 1766 to his death in
1783. The founding of academies by the European governments marls also
the official entry of governments into the area of science and the support of
science. The usefulness of science had received recognition.
The institutions that a modern person would expect to play the major
role in the creation and dissemination of knowledge-the universities-were
ineffective. They were conservative and dogmatic, controlled by the official
religions of the respective countries and very slow to incorporate new
knowledge. On the whole they taught just a modicum of arithmetic, algebra,
and geometry. Though there were some mathematicians at Cambridge
University in the sixteenth century, from 1600 to 1630 there were none. In
fact, in England during the early seventeenth century' mathematics did not
form part of the curriculum. ft was regarded as devilry. Wallis, who was
MATHEMATTCS AS OF rTOO
398
born in 1616, says of the education common during his childhood, " Mathe-
matics at that time with us was scarce looked on as academical but rather
mechanical-as the business of tradesmen." He did attend Cambridge
University and study mathematics there, but learned far more from inde-
pendent study. Though prepared to be a professor of mathematics, he left
Cambridge " because that study had died out there and no career was open
to a teacher of that subject."
Professorships in mathematics were founded first at Oxford in 1619 and
later at Cambridge. Prior to that, there had been only lecturers oflow status.
The Lucasian professorship at Cambridge, which Barrow was the first to
hold, was founded in 1663. Wallis himself became a professor at Oxford in
1649 and held the chair until 1702. One obstacle to the enlistment of able
professors was that they had to take holy orders, though exceptions were
made, as in the case of Newton. The British universities generally (including
also London, Glasgow, and Edinburgh) had roughly the same history: from
about 1650 to 1750, they were somewhat active and then declined in activity
until about 1825.
The French universities ofthe seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were
inactive in mathematics. Not until the end of the eighteenth century, when
Napoleon founded first-class technical schools, did they make any contri-
bution. At German universities too, the mathematical activity of those two
centuries was at a low level. Leibniz was isolated and, as we noted earlier,
he railed against the teachings of the universities. The University of G<ittin-
gen wzur founded in 1731, but rose only slowly to any position of importance
until Gauss became a professor there. The university centers of Geneva and
Basel in Switzerland were exceptions in the period we are surveying; they
could boast of the Bernoullis, Hermann, and others. The Italian universities
were of some importance in the seventeenth century but lost ground in the
eighteenth. When one notes that Pascal, Fermat, Descartes, Huygens, and
Leibniz never taught at any university and that though Kepler and Galileo
did teach for a while, they were court mathematicians for most of their lives,
one sees how relatively unimportant the universities were.
4. The Prospects for the Eighteenth Century

The enormous seventeenth-century advances in algebra, analytic geometr/,
and the calculus; the heavy involvement of mathematics in science, which
provided deep and intriguing problems; the excitement generated by New-
ton's astonishing successes in celestial mechanics; and the improvement in
communications provided by the academies and journals all pointed to
additional major developments and served to create immense exuberance
about the future of mathematics.
There were obstacles to be overcome. The doubts as to the soundness of
BIBLIoCRAPITY 399
the calculus, the estrangement of the English and Continental mathema-

ticians, the low state of the existing educational institutions, and the uncer-
tainties of the support for careers in mathematics gave pause to young or
would-be mathematicians. Nevertheless, the enthusiasm of the mathema-
ticians was almost unbounded. They had glimpses of a promised land and
were eager to press forward. They were, moreover' able to work in an
atmosphere far more suitable for creation than at any time since 300 s.c.
Classical Greek geometry had not only imposed restrictions on the domain of
matiematics but had impressed a level of rigor for acceptable mathematics
that hampered creativity. The seventeenth-century men had broken both of
these bonds. Progress in mathematics almost demands a comPlete disregard
of logical scruples; and, fortunately, the mathematicians now dared to place
their confidence in intuitions and physical insights.
Bibli.ographE
Hahn, Roger: Thc Anatanry of a Scitntifc Instituti.on: The Pais Acadcny oJ Scimus'
1666-1803, University of California Press, 1971.
Hall, A. Rupert: The Scientific Reaolution, 1500-1800, Longmans, Green, 1954,
Chap. 7.
Hall, A. Rupert, and Marie Boas: The Concspondtnce of Henry Oldcnbwg, 4 vols.,
University of Wisconsin Press, 1968.
Hartley, Sir Harold: The Rogal Society: Its Origins awl Foundas, The Royal Society,
1960.
Ornstein, M.: The Rolc of Scientific Societies in tlu Sctcntunth Ccz!2ry, University of
Chicago Press, 1938.
Purver, Margery: Ttu Rogal Sociely, Conccpt and Crcati.on, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press, 1967'
Wolt Abraham: A History of Scince, Technology aal Philosophy in ,hc l6th and lTth
Centuri.es,2nd ed., George Allen and Unwin, 1950, Chap.4.
r9
Calculus in the Eighteenth Century
And therefore, whether the mathematicians of the present age

act like men of science, in taking so much more pains to apply
their principles than to understand them. BIsHoP BERKELEY
l. Introduction
The greatest achievement ofthe seventeenth century was the calculus. From
this source there stemmed major new branches of mathematics: differential
equations, infinite series, differential geometry, the calculus of variations,
functions of complex variables, and many others. Indeed, the beginnings of
some of these subjects were already present in the works of Newton and
Leibniz. The eighteenth century was devoted largely to the development of
some ofthese branches ofanalysis. But before this could be accomplished, the
calculus itself had to be extended. Newton and Leibniz had created basic
methods, but much remained to be done. Many new functions of one
variable and functions of two or more variables had either to be recognized
explicitly or created; the techniques of differentiation and integration had to
be extended to some of the existing functions and to others yet to be intro-
duced; and the logical foundation of the calculus was still missing. The first
goal was to expand the subject matter of the calculus and this is the subject
of the present chapter and the next one,
The eighteenth-century men did extend the calculus and founded new
branches of analysis, though encountering in the process all the pangs,
errors, incompleteness, and confusion of the creative process. The mathe-
maticians produced a purely formal treatment of calculus and the ensuing
branches of analysis. Their technical skill was unsurpassed I it was guided,
however, not by sharp mathematical thinking but by intuitive and physical
insights. These formal efforts withstood the test of subsequent critical
examination and produced great lines of thought. The conquest of new
domains of mathematics proceeds somewhat as do military conquests. Bold
dashes into enemy territory caPture stronghoids. These incursions must then
be followed up and supported by broader, more thorough and more cautious
operations to secure what has been only tentatively and insecurely grasped.
4o0
TNTRODUCTTON 4Ot
It will be helpful, in appreciating the work and arguments of the

eighteenth-century thinkers, to keep in mind that they did not distinguish
between algebra and analysis. Because they did not appreciate the need for
the limit concept and because they failed to recognize the problems intro-
duced by the use of infinite series, they naively regarded the calculus as an
extension of algebra.
The key figure in eighteenth-century mathematics and the dominant
theoretical physicist of the century, the man who should be ranked with
Archimedes, Newton, and Gauss, is Leonhard Euler (1707-83). Born near
Basel to a preacher, who wanted him to study theology, Leonhard entered
the university at Basel and completed his work at the age of fifteen. While at
Basel he learned mathematics from John Bernoulli. He decided to pursue
the subject and began to publish papers at eighteen. At nineteen he won a
prize from the French Acad€mie des Sciences for a work on the masting of
ships. Through the younger Bernoullis, Nicholas (1695-1726) and Daniel
(1700-82), sons ofJohn, Euler in 1733 secured an appointment at the St.
Petersburg Academy in Russia. He started as an assistant to Daniel Bernoulli
but soon succeeded him as a professor. Though Euler passed some painful
years (173341) under the autocratic government, he did an amazing
amount ofresearch, the results of which appeared in papers published by the
St. Petersburg Academy. He also helped the Russian government on many
physical problems. In 1741, at the call of Frederick the Great, he went to
Berlin, where he remained until 1766. During this period, he gave lessons
to the princess of Anhalt-Dessau, niece of the king of Prussia. These lessons,
on a variety of subjects-mathematics, asronomy, physics, philosophy, and
religion-were later published as t}:.e Letters to a German Priwess and are still
read with pleasure. At the request of Frederick the Great, Euler worked on
state problems of insurance and the design of canals and waterworks. Even
during his twenty-flve years in Berlin he sent hundreds of papers to the St.
Petersburg Academy and advised it on its affairs.
In 1766, at the request ofCatherine the Great, Euler returned to Russia,
although fearing the effect on his weakened sight (he had lost the sight of
one eye in 1735) of the rigors of the climate there. He became, in effect,
blind shortly after returning to Russia, and during the last seventeen years
of his life was totally blind. Nevertheless, these years were no less fruitful
than the preceding ones. Euler had a prodigious memory and knew by heart
the formulas of trigonometry and analysis and the fust six powers of the first
100 prime numbers, to say nothing of innumerable poems and the entire
Eneid. His memory was so phenomenal that he could carry out in his head
numerical calculations that competent mathematicians had difficulty doing
on paper.
Euler's mathematical productivity is incredible. His major mathematical
fields were the calculus, diflerential equations, analytic and difierential
4A2 CALCULUS rN TIIE ETGHTEENTH CENTURY
geometry of curves and surfaces, the theory of numbers, series, and the
calculus of variations, This mathematics he applied to the entire domain of
physics. He created analytical mechanics (as opposed to the older geometrical
mechanics) and the subject of rigid body mechanics. He calculated the
perturbative effect of celestial bodies on the orbit of a planet and the paths
of projectiles in resisting media. His theory of the tides and work on the
design and sailing of ships aided navigation. In this area his Scientia Naaalis
(1749) and Thiorie complitt de la constradion et dz la man@uore dts aaisseaux
(1773) arc outstanding. He investigated the bending of beams and calculated
the safety load ofa column. In acoustics he studied the propagation ofsound
and musical consonance and dissonance. His three volumes on oPtical
instruments contributed to the design of telescopes and microscopes. He was
the fust to treat the vibrations of light analytically and to deduce the
equation of motion taking into account the dependence on the elasticity and
density of the ether, and he obtained many results on the refraction and
dispersion of light. In the subject of light he was the only physicist of the
eighteenth century who favored the wave as opposed to the Particle theory.
The fundamental diflerential equations for the motion of an ideal fluid are
his; and he applied them to the flow of blood in the human body. In the
theory of heat, he (and Daniel Bernoulli) regarded heat as an oscillation of
molecules, and his Essag on Fire (1738) won a prize. Chemistry, geography,
and cartography also interested him, and he made a map of Russia. The
applications were said to be an excuse for his mathematical investigations;
but there can be no doubt that he liked both.
Euler wrote texts on mechanics, algebra, mathematical analysis,
analytic and differential geometry, and the calculus of variations that were
standard works for a hundred years and more afterward. The ones that will
concern us in this chapter are the two-vol urne Intro&uti,o in Analgsin l4finitorum
(1748), the first connected Presentation of the calculus and elementary
analysis; the more comprehensive Institutiones Calculi Diferentialis ( I 755) ; and
the three-volum e Institutiones Calculi Intcgralis (1768-70); all are landmarks.
All of Euler's books contained some highly original features' IIis mechanics,
as noted, was based on analytical rather than geometrical methods. He gave
the first significant treatment of the calculus of variations. Beyond texts he
published original research papers of high quality at the rate ofabout eight
hundred pages a year during most ofthe years ofhis life. The quality ofthese
papers may be judged from the fact that he won so many prizes for them that
these awards became an almost regular addition to his income. Some of the
books and four hundred of his research papers were written after he became
totally blind. A current edition of his collected works, when comPleted, will
contain seventy-four volumes.
Unlike Descartes or Newton before him or Cauchy after him, Euler did
not open up new branches of mathematics' But no one wrls so prolific or
THE FUNCTTON CONCEPT 4O3
could so cleverly handle mathematicsl no one could muster and utilize the
resources of algebra, geometry, and analysis to produce so many admirable
results. Euler was superbly inventive in methodology and a skilled technician.
One finds his name in all branches of mathematics : there are formulas of
Euler, polynomials of Euler, Euler constants, Eulerian integrals, and Euler
lines,
One might suspect that such a volume of activity could be carried on
only at the expense of all other interests, But Euler married and fathered
thirteen children. Always attentive to his family and its welfare he instructed
his children and his grandchildren, constructed scientific games for them,
and spent evenings reading the Bible to them. He also loved to express
himself on matters of philosophy; but here he exhibited his only weakness,
for which he was often chided by Voltaire. One day he was forced to confess
that he had never studied any philosophy and regretted having believed that
one could understand that subject without studying it. But Euler's spirit for
philosophic disputes remained undampened and he continued to engage in
them. He even enjoyed the sharp criticism he provoked from Voltaire.
Surrounded by universal respect-well merited by the nobility of his
character-he could at the end of his life consider as his pupils all the
mathematicians of Europe. On September 7, 1783, after having discussed
the topics of the day, the Montgolfiers,l and the discovery of lJranus,
according to the oft-cited words of J. A. N. C, de Condorcet, "He ceased to
calculate and to live,"
2. TIu Funct'i.on Coruept

As we have seen, the concept of a function and the simpler algebraic and
transcendental functions were introduced and used during the seventeenth
century. As Leibniz, James and John Bernoulli, L'Hospital, Huygens, and
Pierre Varignon (1654-1722) took up problems such as the motion of a
pendulum, the shape of a rope suspended from two fixed points, motion
along curved paths, motion with fixed compass bearing on a sphere (the
loxodrome), evolutes and involutes of curves, caustic curves arising in the
reflection and refraction of light, and the path of a point on one curve that
rolls on another, they not only employed the functions already known but
arrived at more complicated forms of elementary functions. As a consequence
of these researches and general work on the calculus, the elementary func-
tions were fully recognized and developed practically in the manner in which
we now have them. For example, the logarithm function, which originated
l. Thc Montgolfiers were two brothers who in 1783 first successfully madc an ascent in
a balloon filled with heated air.
4O4 CALCULUS IN THE ETGHTEENTH CENTURY
as the relationship between terms in a geometric and arithmetic progression

and was treated in the seventeenth century as the series obtained by inte-
grating 1/(l + x), (Chap. 17, sec. 2), was introduced on a new basis. The
study of the exponential function by Wallis, Newton, Leibniz, and John
Bernoulli showed that the logarithm function is the inverse of the exponen-
tial function whose properties are relatively simple. ln 1742 William Jones
(1675-1749) gave a systematic introduction to the logarithm function in
this manner (Chap. 13, sec. 2). Euler in his Intro&utio defines the two
functions as
, : (, * i)"' logx : 1im z(xlln - l).

,l1x
The mathematics of the trigonometric functions was also systematized.
Newton and Leibniz gave series expansions for these functions. The develop-
ment of the formulas for the functions of the sum and difference of two
angles, that is sin (x * y), sin (* - y), and so forth, is due to a number of
men, among them John Bernoulli and Thomas Fantet de Lagny (1660-
1734) ; the latter wrote a paper in the Mhnoires of the Paris Academy for I 703
on this subject. Fr6d€ric-Christian Mayer (dates unknown), one of the first
members of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, then derived the com-
mon identities of analytical trigonometry on the basis of the sum and
difference formulas.z Finally Euler, in a prize paper of l74B on the subject
of the inequalities in the motions of Jupiter and Saturn, gave the full
systematic treatment of the trigonometric functions.s The periodicity of the
trigonometric functions is clear in El:Jer's Introdwtio of l74B wherein he also
introduced the radian measure of angles.a
Study of the hyperbolic functions began when it was noticed that the
area under a circle was given by \/7 -V d.r whereas the area under the
I
hyperbola is given by I {7--V
dx. Since the two differ by a sign, and the
area under a circle can be expressed by the trigonometric functions (let
, : 4 sin d), whereas the area under the hyperbola is related to the logarithm
function, there should be a relation involving imaginary numbers between
the trigonometric functions and the logarithm function. This idea was
developed by many men (see sec. 3). Finally, J. H. Lambert studied the
hyperbolic functions comprehensively.5
The concept of function had been formulated by John Bernoulli. Euler,
at the very outset of tl:.e Introductio, defines a function as any analytical
expression formed in any manner from a variable quantity and constants.
2. Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop., 2, 1727.

3. Opera, (2), 25, 45-157.
4. Opera, (l), 9, 217-39, 305-7.
5. Hist. de l'Acad. de Bcrlin,24, 1768,327-54, pub. 1770 : Olera Math.,2,24549.
THE FI'NCTION CONCEPT 405
He includes polynomials, power series, and logarithmic and trigonometric

expressions, He also defines a function of several variables. There follows the
notion ofan algebraic function, in which the operations on the independent
variable involve only algebraic operations, which in turn are divided into
two classes: the rational, involving only the four usual operations, and the
irrational, involving roots. He then introduces the transcendental functions,
namely, the trigonometric, the logarithmic, the exponential, variables to
irrational powers, and some integrals.
The principal difference among functions, writes Euler, consists in the
combination of variables and constants that compose them. Thus, he adds,
the transcendental functions are distinguished from the algebraic functions
because the former repeat an infinite number of times the combinations of
the latter; that is, the transcendental functions could be given by infinite
series. Euler and his contemporaries did not regard it as necessary to consider
the validity of the expressions obtained by the unending application of the
four rational operations,
Euler distinguished between explicit and implicit functions and between
single-valued and multiple-valued functions, the latter being roots of higher-
degree equations in two variables, the coefficients of which are functions of
orri ,r"iatle. Here, he says, if a function, su ch as W, where P is a one-valued
function, has real values for real values of the argument, then most often it
can be included among the single-valued functions. From these definitions
(which are not free of contradictions), Euler turns to rational integral
functions or polynomials. Such functions with real coefficients, he affirms,
can be decomposed into first and second degree factors with real coefficients
(see sec. 4 and Chap. 25, sec. 2).
By a continuous function, Euler, like Leibniz and the other eighteenth-
century writers, meant a function specified by an analytic formula; his word
" continuous " really means "analytic" for us, e:<cept for an occasional
discontinuity as in y : l/r.6 Other functions were recognized; the curves
representing them were called "mechanical" or " freely drawn."
E;tler's Introhtclio was the first work in which the function concePt was
made primary and used as a basis for ordering the material of the two
volumes. Something of the spirit of this book may be gathered from Euler's
remarks on the expansion of functions in power series.? He asserts that any
function can be so expanded but then states that "if anyone doubts that
every function can be so expanded then the doubt will be set aside by actually
expanding functions. However in order that the Present investigation e>rtend
over the widest possible domain, in addition to the positive integral powers
6. In Vol. 2, Chap. I of t.is Intro&rctio, Euler introduces " discontinuous " or mixcd func-
tions which require different analytic expressions in different domains ofthe independent
variable. But the concept plays no role in the work.
7. Opna, (l), 8, Chap. 4, p. 74.
406 cALouLUs rN THE ETGHTEENTH oENTuRy
of z, terms with arbitrary exponents will be admitted. Then it is surely

indisputable that every function can be expanded in the form Azd + Bza *
6", l Dza * . . . in which the e:<ponents cr, F, f , 6, ' . . can be any numbers."
For Euler the possibility of expanding all functions into series was confirmed
by his own experience and the experience of all his contemporaries. And in
fact, it was true in those days that all functions given by analytic expressions
wcre developable in series.
Though a controversy about the notion of a function did arise in
connection with the vibrating-string problem (see Chap. 22) and caused
Euler to generalize his own notion of what a function was, the concept that
dominated the eighteenth century was still the notion of a function given by
a single analytic expression, finite or infinite. Thus Lagrange, in his Thiorie
fus forctions awlgtiqus (1797), defined a function of one or several variables
as any o<pression useful ficr calculation in which these variables enter in any
manner whatsoever. ln Legons sur le calatl fus fonttions (1806), he says that
functions represent different operations that must be performed on known
quautities to obtain the values of unknown quantities, and that the latter are
properly only the last result ofthe calculation. fn other words, a function is a
combination of operations.
3. Tlu Techniquc of Integration and Complex Quantities

The basic method for integrating even somewhat complicated algebraic
functions and the transcendental functions-the technique introduced by
Newton-was to represent the functions as series and integrate term by term.
Little by little, the mathematicians developed the techniques of going from
one closed form to another.
The eighteenth-century use of the integral concept was limited. Newton
had utilized the derivative and the antiderivative or indefinite integral,
whereas Leibniz had emphasized differentials and the summation of differen-
tials. John Bernoulli, presumably following Leibniz, treated the integral as
the inverse of the differential, so that if dy : f' (x) dx, then y : .,7f(*). That is,
the Newtonian antiderivative was chosen as the integral, but differentials
were used in place of Newton's derivative. According to Bernoulli, the object
of the integral calculus was to find from a given relation among diferentials
ofvariables, the relation ofthe variables. Euler emphasized that the derivative
is the ratio of the evanescent differentials and said that the integral calculus
was concerned with finding the function itself. 'fhe summation concept was
used by him only for the approximate evaluation of integrals. In fact, all of
the eighteenth-century mathematicians treated the integral as the inverse of
the derivative or of the differen tial dy . The existence of an integral was never
questioned; it was, of course, found explicitly in most of the applications
made in the eighteenth century, so that the question did not occur.
TNTEGRATTON AND COMPLEX qUANTTTIES 407
A few instances of the development of the technique of integration are

worth noting. To evaluate
I o'd*
)a2-72
James Bernoullis had used the change of variable
b'-t2
*: a_b\ f;
this converts the integral to the form
tdt
Jmr
which is readily integrable as a logarithm function. John Bernoulli noticed
in 1702 and published in the Mhnoires of the Academy of Sciences of that
year e the observation that
o'--!l-L I \.
- a_xl,
so that the integration can be performed at once' Thus the method of partial
-4_xz-Z\o+x-
fractions was introduced. This method was also noted indePendently by
Leibniz in the Acta Eruditorum of 1702.10
In correspondence between John Bernoulli and Leibniz, the method
was applied to
rtu
J ;al-t- +,'
However, since the linear factors of ax2 + ,, + c could be complor, the
method of partial fractions led to integrals of the form
ld*
J-*+ a
in which d at least was a complex number. Both Leibuiz and John Bernoulli
nevertheless integrated by using the logarithm rule and so involved the
Iogarithms of complex numbers. Despite the confusion about complex
numbers, neither hesitated to integrate in this manner. Leibniz said the
presence of complex numbers did no harm.
John Bernoulli employed them repeatedly. In a paper published in
170211 he pointed out that, just as adzl(b2 - z') goes over by means of the
8. Acta Erutl., 1699 = O\cra,2' 868-70.

9. O!*a, l, 393-400.
lO. Math. Schrifun, 5, 350-66.
ll. MCrn, de l'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1702' 289 ff. = Ofucta, 1,393-400.
4OB CALCULUS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
substitution z : b(t - 1)/(, + l) into adtl2bt, so the differential

dz
F+*
goes over by the substitution z : tEi t(t - l)/(, + 1) to
-dt
and the latter is the differential of the logarithm of an imaginary number.

Since the original integral also leads to the arc tan function, Bernoulli had
thus established a relation between the trigonometric and logarithmic
functions.
However, these results soon raised lively discussions about the nature of
the logarithms of negative and complex numbers. In his article of l7l2r2
and in an exchange of letters with John Bernoulli during the years 1712-13,
Leibniz affirmed that the logarithms of negative numbers are nonexistent
(he said imaginary), while Bernoulli sought to prove that they must be real.
Leibniz's argument was that positive logarithms are used for numbers greater
than I and negative logarithms for numbers between 0 and l. Ilence there
could be no Iogarithm for negative numbers. Moreover, if there were a
logarithm for - 1, then the logarithm of t/i would be half of it; but surely
there was no logarithm for t/ - l. That Liebniz could argue in this manner
after having introduced the logarithms of complex numbers in integration is
inexplicable. Bernoulli argued that since
(r) 41 :4,
-* lC
then log ( -r) : log r; and since log I : 0, so is log ( - l). Leibniz countered
that d(log x) : dxlx holds only for positive x. A second round of corre-
spondence and disagreement took place between Euler and John Bernoulli
during the years 1727-31. Bernoulli maintained his position, while Euler
disagreed withit, though, at the time, he had no consistent position of his
own.
The final clarification of what the logarithm of a complex number is
became possible by virtue of related developments that are themselves
significant and that led to the relationship between the exponential and the
trigonometric functions. In l7l4 Roger Cotes (1682-1716) published 13 a
theorem on complex numbers, which, in modern notation, states that
(2) {= 0: Io& (cos { + V-T sin {).

12. Acta Erud., 1712, 167-69 : Math. Schriften 5, 387-89.
13. Phil. Trans., 29, 171+, 545.
TNTEGRATTON AND COMPLEX QUANTTTTES 4Og
In a letter to John Bernoulli of October 18, 1740, Euler stated that

! :2cosx and y : s{-:1 ' * ,-{=1 x were both solutions of the same
differential equation (which he recognized through series solutions), and so
must be equal. He published this observation in 1743,14 namely,
^l=is ' --{=i" . e{=8 _ r- 1y''-ls
(3) cos r:
2\/ -l
In 1748 he rediscovered the result (2) of Cotes, which would also follow
from (3).
While this development was taking place, Abraham de Moivre (1667-
1754), who left France and settled in London when the Edict of Nantes
protecting Huguenots was revoked, obtained, at least implicitly, the formula
now named after him. In a note of 1722, which utilizes a result already
published in l7O7,L6 he says that one can obtain a relation between x and t,
which represent the versines of two arcs (vers a : I - cos c) that are in
the ratio of I to z, by eliminating z from the two equations
I -2zn + z2n: -221t and. I -22*22: -22x.
In this result the de Moivre formula is implicit, for if one sets.f, : I- cos {
and t : I - cos n$, one can derive
(4) (cos / + y'J sin d)" : "o. ng + t/ -l sinng.
For de Moivre z was an integer > 0. Actually, he never wrote the last result
explicitly; the final formulation is due to Eulerls and was generalized by
him to all real z.
By 1747 Euler had enough experience with the relationship between
exponentials, logarithms, and trigonometric functions to obtain the correct
facts about the logarithms of complex numbers. In an article of 1749,
entitled "De la controverse entre Mrs. [Messrs] Leibnitz et Bernoulli sur les
logarithmes n€gatifs et imaginaires,"l? Euler disagrees with Leibniz's
counterargument that d(log x) : drlx for positive * only. He says that
Leibniz's objection, ifcorrect, shatters the foundation ofall analysis, namely,
that the rules and operations apply no matter what the nature ofthe objects
to which they are applied. He affirms that d(log x) : dxlx is correct for
positive and negative x but adds that Bernoulli forgets that all one can
conclude from (1) above is that log (-r) and logx differ by a constant.
This constant must be log (- l) because log ( -r) : tog (- I .x) : log (- 1) +
log *. Hence, says Euler, Bernoulli has assumed, in effect, that log ( - 1)
:0, but this must be proved. Bernoulli had given other arguments, which
14. Miscellanca Berolinensi.a, 7, 1743, l?2-92: Opera, (l), 14, 138-55.
15. Phil. Trans., 25, 1707,2368-71.
16. Introductio, Chap. L
17. Hist. de I'Acad. de Berlin,5, 1749, 139-79, pub. l75l : Oicta, (l),17,195-232.
4IO CALCULUS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
Euler also answers. For example, Bernoulli had argued that since (-a)':a',
then log (-o)' : log a3 and so 2log (-") :2loga or log (-a) : lo9 a.
Euler counters that, since (dt/=11t : aa, then log a : Log (a\/ a7 :
log a * log \/= and so in this case, presumably log l-1 would have to
be 0. But, Euler says, Bernoulli himself has proved in another connection
that tog \/= : Gi nl2.
Leibniz had argued that since
(5) log(l + x):x-i* *I*' -f,*n +...

then for x: -2
rog(-r) : -2 -i-2.. ,
from which one sees at least that log (-l) is not 0 (in fact, Leibniz had
said that log ( - l) is nonexistent). Euler's answer to this argument is that
from
I
i-i':I-**x2-xi*xa"''
for x : -3 one obtains
I
-2:t+3+9+27+...
and for *: I one obtains
I
i:t-l+l-l+...,
so that by adding the left and right sides
0:2 +2 + 10 + 26 +....
Hence, says Euler, the argument from series proves nothing.
After rduting Leibniz and Bernoulli, Euler gives what is, by present
standards, an incorrect argument, He writes
!6:ev:(r*1)',
wherein i is an infinitely Iarge number.l8 Then
l:n: I +!,
18. In his carlier work Euler used i (the first lettet of bStitus) for an infinitcly large
quantity. I.Jfter l7?7 he used i for y'li'
ELLIPTIC INTIGR.A'IJ 4rt
and so
g:i(xLtt-l).
Since xllr, "the root with infinitely large exponent i," has infinitely many
complex values, y has such values, and since y : log.r, then so does log x'
In fact Euler now writes le
x: a * b\/=: c(cos{ + y'JsinC)'
Letting c be ec he has
r: ec(cos d + isin +) - ece{=<o *'^",

and so
(6) ,:1oB x:C * (+ r2^d\/=i

where I is a positive integer or zero. Thus, Euler affirms, for positive real
numbers only one value of the logarithm is real and the others are all
imaginary; but for negative real numbers and for imaginary numbers all,
values of the logarithm are imaginary. Despite this successful resolution of
the problem, Euler's work was not accepted. D'Alembert advanced meta-
physical, analytical, and geometrical arguments to show that log (- l) : 0'
4. Elliptir Integrak
John Bernoulli, having succeeded in integrating some rational functions by
ihe method of partial fractions, asserted in the Acta Eruditorvm of 1702 that
the integral of any rational function need not involve any other tran-
scendental functions than trigonometric or logarithmic functions. Since the
denominator ofa rational function can be an zth degree polynomial in *, the
correctness of the assertion depended on whether any polynomial with real
coefficients can be expressed as a product of first and second degree factors
with real coefficients. Leibniz in his paper in the Acta of 1702 thought this
was not possible and gave the example of xa a aa- He pointed out that
xa + aa : (xz - arlF-I)(x, + arlZl)

--\.r- a 61/fi1q* -.{fi1
x (x + a{ -{=1)(x - a! -{ -t)
and, he said, no two of these four factors multiplied together give a quadratic
factor with real coefficients. Had he been able to exPress the square root of
re. s+ bl=i: lvTT(#+* * ):

^/=--J-{-o c(cosc + isin{)'
4t2 oALCULUS rN Tr{E EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
{-- I and, - \/= as ordinary complex numbers he would have seen his
error. Nicholas Bernoulli (1687-1759), a nephew ofJames andJohn, pointed
out in the Acta Eruditorum of l7l9 that xa + oo : (a' + x')' - 2a2x2 :
(az + x2 + ax\/-2) (a2 + x2 - axl/2) ; thus the function ll(x4 + aa) could
be integrated in terms of trigonometric and logarithmic functions.
The integration of irrational functions was also considered. James
Bernoulli and Leibniz corresponded on this subject, because such integrands
were being encountered frequently. James in 169420 was concerned with the
elastica, the shape assumed by a thin rod when forces are applied to it-as,
for example, at its ends. For one set of end-conditions he found that the
equation of the curve is given by
. (x2 + ab\ dx
-
' \f-at_ (rc\ ab)z'
he could not integrate it in terms of the elementary functions. In connection
with this work he introduced the lemniscate, whose rectangular coordinate
equation is (r2 * y')' : a'(x' - 92) and. whose polar coordinate equation
is 12 : a2 cos 2d. James tried to find the arc length, which from the vertex
to an arbitrary point on the curve is given by
, : Jof' ---!-_
at
a,.
1/ - ,n
and surmised that this integral, too, could not be integrated in terms of the
elementary functions. Seventeenth-century attempts to rectify the ellipse,
whose arc length is important for astronomy, led to the problem of evaluating
':of'-W
Jo {(t - t2)(t - k2t2)
when the equation of the ellipse is taken as
*' .- lj ,-
a2 t bz--
and in the integrand k : (a' - b')lo'and tr : xla.The problem of finding
the period of a simple pendulum led to the integral
r:4 -{gJo
F- l"t2 d6
1/-1- 1rz;"24
Such irrational integrands also occurred in finding the length of arc of a
hyperbola, the trigonometric functions, and other curves. These integrals
were already known by 1700; and others involving such integrands kept
occurring throughout the eighteenth century. Thus Euler, in a definitive
20. Acta Erud., 1694, 262-76 : O\era,2, 576-600.

ELLIPTIC INTEGRALS 413
treatment of the elastica in the appendix to his I 744 book on the calculus of
variations, obtained
,.,- @+Fx+Yxz)dx
u-t/-on-1oap*1-r*ry
where the constants are for us immaterial. Like his predecessors, he resorted
to series in order to obtain physical results'
The class of integrals comprised by the above examples is known as
elliptic, the name coming from the problem of finding the length of arc of
an ellipse. The eighteenth-century men did not know it, but these integrals
cannot be evaluated in terms of the algebraic, circular, logarithmic, or
exponential functions.2l
The first investigations of elliptic integrals were directed not so much
toward attempts to evaluate the integrals as toward the reduction of the
more complicated ones to those arising in the rectification of eltpse and
hyperbola. The reason for this approach is that from the geometrical Point
of view, which dominated at that time, the integrals for the elliptic and
hyperbolic arcs seemed to be the simplest ones. A new point of view was
opened up by the observation that the difierential equation
(7) J@) dx : !f@) ds,
wtrere irt(*) /x is a logarithmic function or an inverse trigonometric function,

has as'an integral an algebraic function of * and y; that is, in spite of the
fact that it is impossible to find an algebraic integral of/(x) dr itself, one can
find an algebraic integral of the sum or difference of two such differentials'
John Bernoulli then asked whether this property might not hold
for other
integ"als than those of logarithms or inverse trigonometric functions'33 IIe
had discovered in 1698 that the difference of two arcs ofthe cubical parabola
(y : x") is integrable, a result he had obtained accidentally and regarded
as most elegant. He then posed the more general problem of finding arcs of
(higher) parabolas, ellipses, and hyperbolas whose sum or difference is equal
to a rectilinear quantity, and affirmed that parabolic curves of the form
a^gP : boxq, n + p : n + q, are such that arcs of such curves, added or
subtracted, equal a straight line. He gave no proof.
Count Giulio Carlo de' Toschi di Fagnano (1682-1766), an amateur
mathematician, began in l7l4 to take up these problems.ss He considered
the curves y : (2ln + 2)l^+2tt2la^t2 with m rational' For such curves it is
rather straightforward to show (Fig. l9.l) that
m f*, dx
(PlRr
;?rJ-"-r + (*la)^:
atcPP.. - - PR)
21. This was proved by Liouville (Jour, de I'Ecole Polg., 14, 1833, 12'[-93)'
22. Acta Erud., Oct. 1698,462tr'= Opua, 1,249'53.
23. Gionalc dzi Iztteruti d'Italia, Vols. 19 fr'
414 CALCULUS IN THE EIGHTtsENTH CENTT'RY
Figurc 19.l
where #o and ,1 are the abscissas of rR and Rr, and P.R and Pr8, are the
tangents at P and P1 respectively. Likewise
i- rn |14---------::-:arcQQt
dz
- (QrS, -
m + 2J.o \n +I;ifi 8S).
If,, therefore, for some relation of r to z we have

(8)
then the sum of the two definite integrals would be 0, and we would have
(e) tc QQr - arc PPr: (QrS, - QS) - (&.B1 - PR).
A solution of (8) for m : 4 is
(lo) I.a.: r.
Then for m:4, ol the curve g : xgl3az, the difference of two arcs whose
end-values * and z are related by (10) is expressible as a straight line segment.
Fagnano also obtained integrals of (B) for m : 6 and, m : 3.
Fagnano showed further that on the ellipse, as well as on the hyperbola,
one can find infinitely many arcs whose difference can be expressed alge-
braicalln even though the individual arcs cannot be rectified. Thus in 1716
he showed that the difference of any two elliptic arcs is algebraic. Analytically
he had
(r 1)
\/ffi1
""":d)t . ffi or:o
t/Jzz + e
415
Figure 19.2
or, for brevity,

Xdtc+zdz:0
where ft, 1,.f, g, *, and z satisfr the condition
(12) fhxzz2 + flx2 * flzz + gl : o'
Fagnano showed that

rrhxz zaz:
(t3)
)
xdx +
J -@'
What this means geometrically is that if 2a is the minor axis Fz{ of an
ellipse (Fig. lg.2), CH : x, CE : z, JH is the ordinate at fI, and GE'
the
ordinate at E, then
(14) arcJD+arcDG:fi+c.
(To identify this with the integrals, let I be the parameter [atus rectum]
of the ellipse. let b-2a:i, l:2a8, f: -2a' g:2as' Then z is
o7-ro"- 2*; l!r;--2a\hxz.) whenr : o, arc JD vanishes and the algebraic
i"r* ir, (14) vanishes. ny (1i), z : a, arrd so arc DG becomes arc Dl' This
is the value of C. Then one can say
arcJD*arcGD:+r*arcDA
arc JD - ur.GA:42 r.
One result from this work,'{ still called Fagnano's theorem and obtained
in 1716, states the following: Let
# *orJ,: '
24. OPcre, 2, 287-92.
416 CALCULUS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
Figure 19.3
y) and p,(*,,y,) be two points

be the ellipse of eccentricity e and let p(x,
(Fig. 19.3) whose eccentric angles $ and $,satisfy the condition
(15) tan / tan 6, ::.

Then the theorem states that
(16) arc BP + arc BP' - arc BA : e2xx'la.
The points P and. P'may coincide (while satisfying Il5]). For this common
position fl called Fagnano's point, he showed that
(17) arc.BF - arcAF: a - b.
From l7l4 on Fagnano also concerned himself with the rectification of the
lemniscate by means of elliptic and hyperbolic arcs.
In l7l7 and, 1720 Fagnano integrated other combinations of differen-
':als. Thus he showed
that
(18) _L:_L
ll-xa {l-ra'
has the integral
(te) -: -^17t-v
*i
or
(20) x2 *!2 I x2g2:1.
One way of stating the result is: Between two integrals that express arcs ofa
lemniscate (for which a : l), an algebraic relation exists, even though each
integral separately is a transcendental function ofa new kind.
Fagnano then proceeded to establish a number of similar relations in
order to obtain special results about the lemniscate.25 For example, he
25. Gionale dci l*uetati d,Itatia. 30, l7l8, 87 ff. : O?eru,2, gO4_tZ.
ELLIPTIC INTEGRALS 417
Figure 19.4
showed that if
d* 2du
(21)
t/l - xn {l-yn
then
(22)
tt-t-_:^ : {-, - *,
y{2 {l+x
or by solving for *,
(23) x: --l | +2y2

+Zi--
+y4
From a variety ofsuch results Fagnano showed how to find the points on the
lemniscate (thevaluesofrinr2 : a2 cos 2d) that divide the quadrant, that is,
the arc CQA in Figure 19.4, into z equal parts for certain values of n' He
also showed how, given an arc CS, one can find the point f on this arc that
divides C,5 into two equal parts' Further, he found the points on arc CQA
which, when joined to C, divide the area under CQA and the horizontal axis
into two, three, and five parts; and given the chords that divide this area
into n equal parts, he found the chords bisecting each of these parts'
Thus Fignano had done more than answer Bernoulli's question; he
had shown that the same remarkable algebraic property that characterized
the integrals representing logarithmic and inverse trigonometric functions
held for at least certain classes of elliptic integrals.
About 1750 Euler noted Fagnano's work on the ellipse, hyperbola, and
lemniscate and began a series of investigations of his own. fn a paper'
" Observationes de Comparatione Arcuum Curvarum lrrectificabilium," '8
Euler, after repeating some of Fagnano's work, showed how to divide the
area of a quadrant of the lemniscate into z + I parts if it has already been
divided inio z parts. He then points out that his and Fagnano's work has
furnished some useful results on integration, for the equation (18) has,
besides the'obvious integral 7 : y, the additional particular integral
26. Novi Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,6, 175617,5&{4, pub. 176l = Olerut (l), 20, 80-107'
4I8 ciALcULUs IN TIIE EIGIITE'ENTH oE,NTURY
In his paper "De Integratione ,tEquationis Differentialis n dxl{T--r{-

: dVllET,",? Euler takes Fagnano's results as his point of departure.
The" integrals Fagnano had obtained for most of the differential equations
he had considered were particular integrals. These were algebraic; but the
complete integral might well be transcendental. Euler decided to look for
complete integrals in algebraic form. He started with (lB), but hoped to
obtain the complete integral of
(24) mdx ndy

{l - xL \/T--V
IIerc mln is rational and the equation expresses the problem of finding two
arcs ofa lemniscate that have this ratio to each other. Euler says that he has
been led by trial to believe that (24) has a complete integral that can be
expressed algebraically when mln is rational.
From the investigations of Fagnano it followed that equation (lB) is
satisfed by the particular integral (19) or (20). The integral of each side of
(18) is an arc ofa lemniscate with half-axis I and abscissa *, and the integra-
tion of the ordinary differential equation (18) amounts to finding two ircs
that are ofequal length. Euler had pointed out that * : y is another particular
integral of(lB). The complete integral should be such that it reduces to each
of these particular integrals for special values of the arbitrary constant.
Guided by these facts, Euler found that the complete integral of (18) is
(25) 72 ! !2 * czgz*z : 6e a 22y{l - at

or
(26) .:----|-;FF-
u\/T-=V + ct/|1 u+
where c is an arbirary constant. Of course, given (25) we can readily veri$

that it is the complete integral of (lB).
Implicit in the result (25) is what is often called Euler,s addition theorem
for these simple elliptic integrals. It is clear by straight diferentiation tiat
07\ f* d* : f ! dx tc drc
J o 1/1i J o m - Jo
where a is a constant, is also a complete integral of (lB). Hence *, g, and, c
must be related by (25). Thus the addition theorem says that if (27) holds -'=-,ci
for the elliptic integrals therein, then the upper limit x is an algebraic
symmetric function, namely (26), of the arbitrarily chosen upper limits y
and c of the other two integrals. The addition theorem applies to more
general integrals, as we shall see.
27. Nooi Conm. Acad. Sci. Parop.,6, t75617,37-57, pub. 176l : Olcra, (l),20,58-79.
ELLIPTIC INTEORAIS 4I9
By utilizing these results (25) and (27), it is rather straightforward to

show that if
lv d,
|
fx dtc
(28) :-nl
)n <rf1-xe Jo1/l-xa
theny is an algebraic function of ,. This result is called Euler's multiplication
theorem for tf,e eiliptic integral li a4t/C7. From this result the com-
--
plete integral of equation (28) follows; the important point is that it is an

algebraic iquation in x,y, and' an arbitrary constant c' Euler shows how the
but does not Sive it explicitly'
-In integral might be obtained
complete
the same paper of 1756-57 and in Volume 7 of the same journal,ss
Euler tackled more general elliptic integrals. He gives the following result,
which he says he obtained by trial and error' If one differentiates
(29) u +28@ +y) +y(xz +E\ +2xs +2ery@ *v) t Lfsz:0,
then the differential equation can be put in the form
d* Lrr-r:
\/X *
(30) o
where x and Y are polynomials of the fourth degree of which four coefficients
(the same in Xand I) can be expressed in terms of the five in (29) with the
help of an arbitrary constant. Then (29) is the complete integral of (30),
and when (30) is speciatized to (IB), then (29) becomes (25)' Euler remarks
that it is wonderful that, even though an integral of dxl{T cannot be
obtained in terms of circular or logarithmic functions, the equation (30) is
satisfied by an algebraic relation. He then generalizes the results to
mtk
---: ndu
mlnfanOnal,
(31)
\/x \/Y
--,
where X and I are fourth degree polynomials with the same coefficients'
The result is also in r,rtler,s Institutiancs calculi Integtalis,zs where he shows
what the results mean geometrically in terms of ellipse, hyperbola, and
lemniscate.
From these results Euler was able to proceed with what is now called
the addition theorem for elliptic integrals of the first kind. consider the
elliptic integral
fdx
t-
(32)
J \/@
28. Noai Comm. Acad. Sci. Pcttop.,7, 175819,3-48, pub. 176l : Olaa, (1), 20' 153-200'
29. Vol. 1, Sec. 2, Chap. 6 = Olna, (l), ll, 391-423'
420 CALCULUS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
where .R(r) : Axa + Bxs I Cxz a Dx * E. Then the addition theorem

states that the equation
dx dy
(33)
@r-l:@
is satisfied by a certain definite algebraic equation in * and y such that y is
rationally expressible in terms of .t, the corresponding value of t/ R(x), the
constants xo and yo, and the corresponding values of t/E(a) and,
"rblyry
lW;. Akoy takes on the arbitrarily preasslgned value yo when r takes on
the arbitrary value ro.
This result leads readily to another theorem, which may be more
enlightening. Ifthe sum or the diflerence of two elliptic integrals of the form
(34)
I dtc
t-
J \/86
is equated to a third integral of the same form, and if further the lower limit
of integration and the coefficients under the radical are the same for all
three integrals, then the upper limit of integration ofthe third integral is an
algebraic function of the two other upper limits, the common lower limit,
and the corresponding values of {E@ at the two upper limits and the lower
limit.
Euler went further. Just as Fagnano's treatment of the difference of
two lemniscate arcs led him to the general elliptic integral of the first kind,
so Fagnano's treatment of the difference of two elliptic arcs (see [l l]) led
Euler to an addition theorem for integrals ofa second kind.so He expressed
regret that his methods were not extensible to higher roots than the square
root or to radicands ofhigher than fourth degree. He also saw a great defect
in his work in that he had not obtained his complete algebraic integrals by a
general method of analysis; consequently his results were not naturally
related to other parts of the calculus.
The definitive work on elliptic integrals was done by Adrien-Marie
Legendre (1752-1833), a professor at the Ecole Militaire who served on
several governmental committees; he later became an examiner of students
at the Ecole Polytechnique. Up to his death in lB33 he never ceased to work
with passion and regularity. His name lives in a great number of theorems,
very varied, because he tackled most diverse questions. But he had neither
the originality nor the profundity of Lagrange, Laplace, and Monge.
Legendre's work gave birth to very important theories, but only after it was
taken over by more powerful minds. He ranks just after the three con-
temporaries just mentioned.
30, Noai Comm, Acad. Sci. Pettop., 7, 175819, 3-48, pub. 176l : Opera, (l), 20, 153-200
:
and Inst. Cal. Integ., l, fl645 Opera, (l), I l, '1T645.
ELLIPTIC INTEGRAI,S 421
Euler's addition theorems were the main results of the theory of elliptic
integrals when Legendre took up the subject in 1786. For four decades he
*ur1h" only man who added investigations concerning these integrals to the
literature. i{e devoted two basic papers to the subject,3l then wrote the
Exerciccs de calcul intlgrat (3 vols., l8ll, l8l7, 1826), the Traiti des fonctions
elliptiquessz (2 vols., 1825-26), and three supPlements giving accounts of the
*oit of eU.t and Jacobi in 1829 and 1832. Euler's results, like Fagnano's,
were tied to geometrical considerations I Legendre concentrated on the
analysis proper.
i"g.rrai"" chief result, which is in lrris Trai.ti, was to show that the
general elliptic integral
P(*) *,
IJ t/R(x\
(3s)
where P(r) is any rational function of x and,R(.r) is the usual general fourth
degree polynomial, can be reduced to three types:
(36) ldx
J1/-t- xr1/l - ti?
I
I
xz dx
(37)
J 'n-:Arn-=eP'
dx
(38)
Legendre designated these three types as elliPtic inte$als of the fust, second,
and third kinds, resPectivelY.
He also showed that by further
-. transformations these three integrals can
be reduced to the three forms
(3e) F(k,6) : J: d6
0<r<l
\/l - k2 sinz 6
(40) E(k,$):
I: \/T-=-FR6a6, 0</c<l
(41) .(r,k,$) : Jo (l sin'{

0<&<l
1 z sinz il{l - ,t2
where z is any constant. In these forms one sees that the values of the integrals
from{:0 io{: tl2 ate repeated but in reverse order from $: '.l2to
31. Hist. de l'Acad.des Sci., Paris, 1786, 616-43 and 6'1'['{3'
32. The use ofthe word,,function" in this text is misleading. Hc studied elliPtic integrals
and at times those with variable upper limis. These are, of course, functions of the upper
limits. But the term,.elliptic functions " refers today to the functions introduced later by
Abel and Jacobi.
422 _
CALCULUS rN THE ETGTTTEENTH CENTURY
,i : o, The notation A(ft, {) for was also introduced by

Legendre.
These forms can be converted, by the change of variable x : sin {, to
the Jacobi forms
(42)
(43)
(44) /n,k,4: [" (l + tucz)
The quantity,t is called the modulus of each elliptic integral. If the limits of
integration are $ : zrl2 or x: l, then the integrals are called complete;
otherwise, incomplete.
There was much merit in Legendre's work on elliptic integrals. He
drew many inferences, previously unstated, from the work ofhis predecessors
and otganized the mathematical subject; but he did not add any basic
ideas, nor did he attain the new insight of Abel and Jacobi (Chap. 27,
sec. 6) who inverted these integrals and so conceived of the elliptic
functions.
Legendre did get to know the work ofAbel andJacobi and praised them, with
much humility and, probably, some bitterness. In devoting the supplements
to his 1825 work to tleir new ideas, he understood very well that this material
threw into the shade all he had done on the subject. He had overlooked one
of the great discoveries of his epoch.
5. Furthn Spuiol Functioru

The elliptic indefinite integrals are new transcendental functions. As the
analytical work of the eighteenth century developed, more transcendental
functions were obtained. Of these the most important is the gamma function,
which arose from work on two problems, interpolation theory and anti-
differentiation. The problem of interpolation had been considered by James
Stirling (1692-1770), Daniel Bernoulli, and Christian Goldbach (1690-
1764). lt was posed to Euler and he announced his solution in a letter of
October 13, 1729, to Goldbach.ss A second letter, of January B, 1730,
brought in the integration problem.sa In 1731 Euler published results on
both in a paper, "De Progressionibus. . . . "35
33. Fuss, Concsporulaacc, 1,3-7.

34. Fuss, Conespondance, 1, ll-18.
35. Comm. Aaad. Sci. Parop.,5, 173011,36-57, pub. 1738 : Olera, (t),14, l-24.
FURTHER SPECIAL FUNCTIONS 423
The interPolation problem was to give meaning to z! for nonintegral

values of z. Euler noted that
(45) .' : [(?)" #] [(:J" #] [(;)" #]

:ne+tn.k
-+=+\ k lk+n .
The equation is seen to be formally correct if one cancels common factors

in the infinite product. However, this analytic expression for z!, unlike the
basicdefinitionn(n-l)"'2'l,hasameaningforallzexcePtnegative
integral values. Euler noticed that for n : ll2 the right side yields, after a
bit of manipulation, the infinite product of Wallis
(46)
;:(#\#)(#)(H)
In the notation l(z * l) : z!, introduced later by Legendre' Euler also
showed that l(z + t) : zl(z) and so obtained I(3/2L I(5/2)' and so forth'
Euler couid have used (45) as his generalization ofthe factorial concePt.
In f,rct, it is often introduced today in the equivalent form, which Euler also
gave, namely,
.. ml (n
* 1)"
(47)
;'ji 6ry0, + 2)..'(n + n)
But the connection with wallis's result led Euler to take uf an integral
already considered by Wallis, namely,
(48) !' *1 - *1" a*
wherein for Euler e and n are now arbitrary' Euler evaluated this integral by
expanding (l - *)" by the binomial theorem and obtained
(4e)
tt x"(1 - x)" dx
: # _
w+a . #6h _,,i,;,ru)c!r.nl, *
For z : O, 1,2, 3,. . . the sums on the right side are respectively
(5oi ;
I 1 1.2
+-t'GT rjGTT)'G +TGTECTT)'
l-2.3
424 CALCULUS IN THE EIGHTEENTII CENTURY
Hence for positive integral z Euler found that
(51)
Euler now sought an expression for z! with n arbiuary. By a series of

transformations that would not be wholly acceptable to us today, Euler
arrived at
(52)
",
: I' (-rog x)* dx.
This integral has meaning for almost all arbitrary z. It is called the second
Eulerian integral, or, as Legendre later called it, the gamma function, and
is denoted by I(n + l). [Gauss let r(n) : l(z + l)]. Later, in lTBl (pub.
1794), Euler gave the modern form, which is obtained from (52) by letting
,: -log *,
(s3) I(z + l) : *"r-" d,*.
[*
The integral (48), which Legendre called the fust Eulerian integral,
became standardized as the beta function,
' B(*,, :
I:in-L(t -
(54) x),,-t 4r.
Euler discovered the relation between the two integrals,a6 namely,
B(m,n):W
In his Exercices de calcul intigral, Legendre made a profound study of the
Eulerian integrals and arrived at the duplication formula
(s5) l(2r) : (2t)-rtz 2zt -<r,"r1rlr(, + j).

Gauss studied the gamma function in his work on the hypergeometric
function 37 and extended Legendre's result to what is called the multipli-
cation formula:
(56) r(zx) : (2r){t - n>rz

n,x -(l/Dl(*) l(r . - ;)
}).(,
l(, *" =o')'
36. Nooi Comrn. Acad. Sci. Petrop., 16, 1771,91-139, pub. 1772 : Operu, (l), 17, 316-57.
37. Comm. Soc. Gott.,II, l8l3 - Werhe,3, 123-162, p. 149 in part.
TrrE oALCULUS OF FUNCTIONS OF SEVERAL VARTABLES 425
6. The Calculus of Furutions of Seaeral Variables

The development of the calculus offunctions of two and three variables took
place early in the century. We shall note just a few of the details'
Though Newton derived from polynomial equations in x and y, that is
f@,il :0, expressions which we now obtain by partial difierentiation also of;f
*ith .".pe"t to r and y, this work was not published. James Bernoulli
used paitial derivatives in his work on isoperimetric problems, as did
Nichoias Bernoulli (1687-1759) in a paper in the Acta Erudinrum of 1720
on orthogonal trajectories. However, it was Alexis Fontaine des Bertins
(1705-71t, Euler, Clairaut, and d'Alembert who created the theory of
partial derivatives.
The difference between an ordinary and a partial derivative was at
first not explicitly recognized, and the same symbol d was used for both'
physical meaning dictated that in the case offunctions of several independent
variables the desired derivative was to take account of the change in one
variable only.
The condition that dz : p dt, + C dy, wherc p and q are functions of x
and y, be an exact differential, that is, be obtainable 11srlr 2 : f(x,g) by
for-ing the differential dz : QflAx) dx + @flAil dy was obtained by
Clairaut.ss His result is thar p dx + q dy is an exact differential, that is,
there is an,f sucinthat 0fl0x : p and, AflAg : q, if and only if Apl4y : 1qlAx'
The major impetus to work with derivatives of functions of two or more
variables came from the early work on partial differential equations. Thus
a calculus of partial derivatives was supplied by.Euler in a series of papers
devoted to pr;blems of hydrodynamics. In a paper of 17343e he shows that
if 2 : J@, y) thelJ
022 022
afly: ds-u'
In other papers writtenfrom 1748 to 1766, he treats change of variable,
inversion olpartial derivatives, and functional determinants. In worls of
1744 and, 1745 or, dynamics, d'Alembert extended the calculus of partial
derivatives.
Multiple integrals were really involved in Newton's work in the Prin-
cipia on thi gravitational attraction exerted by spheres and spherical shells
on particles. However, Newton used geometrical arguments' In the eight-
Newton's work was cast in analytical form and extended'
""rrih "".rtrry
Multiple integrals appear in the first half of the century and were used to
denote the solution ol 02zl0x AS : "f (*' y). They were also used, for example,
to determine the gravitational attraction exerted by a lamina on particles.
38. Mlm. de l'Acatl. des Sci., Pa*, 1739, 425-36, and 1740, 293-323'
39. Comm. Acatl. Sci. Petro!.,7, 173415, 174'93, pub. l7'tO = Olera, (l), 22, 3G56'
426 cALcuLUs rN THE ErcrrrEENTH cENTrrRy
Thus the attraction of an elliptical lamina of thickness 6c on a point directly

over the center and distance c units is a constant times the integral
^6, lf cdtdu
)) 6 a-p _1 g--==n
taken over the ellipse (xala') 4 (y'lb') : 1. This was evaluated by Euler in
1738 by repeated integration.ao He integrated with respect to y and used
infnite series to expand the new integrand as a function ofx.
By 1770 Euler did have a clear conception of the definite double in-
tegral over a bounded domain enclosed by arcs, and he gave the procedure
for evaluating such integrals by repeated integration.al Lagrange, in his
work on the attraction by ellipsoids of revolution,as expressed the attraction
as a triple integral. Finding it difficult to evaluate in rectangular coordinates,
he trarxformed to spherical coordinates. He introduced
x:o+rsin{cos0
y:b+rsin/sind
z: c * rcosit
where a, b, arl.d c are the coordinates of the new origin, 0 is the longitude
angle, $ the colatitude, and 0 < 6 < n, O < 0 < 2zr. The essence of the
transformation of the integral is to replace dx dy dz by r2 sin 0 d0 d$ dr. Tht*
Lagrange began the subject of the transformation of multiple integrals. In
fact, he gave the general method, though not very clearly. Laplace also gave
the spherical coordinate transformation almost simultaneously.ao
7. Tlu Attempts to Supply Ri.gor in tlu Calculus

Accompanying the expansion of the concepts and techniques of the calculus
were eflorts to supply the missing foundations. The books on the calculus
that appeared after Newton's and Leibniz's unsuccessful attempts to explain
the concepts and justify the procedures tried to clear up the confusion but
actually added to it.
Newton's approach to the calculus was potentially easier to rigorize
than Leibniz's, though the latter's methodology was more fluid and more
convenient for application. The English thought they could secure the rigor
for both approaches by trying to tie them to Euclid's geometry. But they
confused Newton's moments (his indivisible increments) with his fluxions,
which dealt with continuous variables. The Continentals, following Leibniz,
worked with differentials and tried to rigorize this concept. Differentials
:
4O, Comm. Acad. Sci. Peho!., 10, 1738, 102-15, plb. 1747 Olaa, (2), 6, 17F88.
41. Noui Comm. Acad. Sci. PctroP., 14, 1769,72-103, pub. 1770: Olaa, (l), 17,289-315.
42. Noua. Mdm. dc l'Acad. dc Berlin, 1773,121-.+8, pub. 1775
= (Euurcs,3, 619-58.
43. Mln. des sar. ltrangas, 1772,53H4, pub, 1776 = (Euarcs, 8,369477.
TrrE ATTEMPTS TO SUPPLY RrGOR rN TtrE CALCULUS 427
were treated either as infinitesimals, that is, quantities not zero but not of
any finite size, or sometimes, as zero.
Brook Taylor (16B5-173I), who was secretary of the Royal Society
lrom I 714 to I 7 18, in his Methodus hurementorum Directa et Inoersa (1715) ,
sought to clarify the ideas of the calculus but limited himself to algebraic
fu.rctiorrs and algebraic differential equations. He thought he could always
deal with finite increments but was vague on their transition to fluxions.
Taylor's exposition, based on what we would call finite differences, failed
to obtain many backers because it was arithmetical in nature when the
British were trying to tie the calculus to geometry or to the physical notion
of velocity.
Some idea of the obscurity of the eighteenth-century efiorts and their
Iack of success may also be gained from Thomas Simpson's (17l04l) A New
Treatise on Fluxions (1737). After some preliminary definitions, he defines a
fluxion thus: "The magnitude by which any flowing quantity would be
uniformly increased in a given portion of time with the generating celerity at
anyproposedpositionorinstant(was[were]itfromt}rencetocontinue
irrvariable) is the fluxion of the said quantity at that Position or instant." In
our language Simpson is defining the derivative by saying that itis (dy ldt) Lt'
Some artho.s gavi up. The French mathematician Michel Rolle at one point
taught that the calculus was a collection of ingenious fallacies'
The eighteenth century also witnessed new attacks on the calculus' The
strongest w;s made by Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753), who feared the
gro*irrg threat to religion posed by mechanism and determinism' In 1734 he
puulistred The Analyst, or A Discourse Addrxscd to an Itfidel Mathematician,
Wurein It is examined uhether tlu Object, Prhuiples, and Infnaucs of tlu morhm
Analysis afe ,n\re distbutly corceiacd, or more caidently dchued, than Rcligious
Mysteries and Points of Faith. " First cast out the beam out of thitu oum Eyc; and thm
shilt thou see clearly to cast out the ,notc out oJ thg brotlur's Eye'" (T;oe "infidel"
was Edmond Halley.)aa
Berkeley rightly pointed out that the mathematicians were proceeding
inductively rather than deductively. Nor did they give the logic or reatons
for their siep.. H. criticized many of Newton's arguments; for example, in
the latter,s be euadraUra, where he said he avoided the infinitely small, he
gave .f the increment denoted by a, expanded (x + o)", subtracted the *n,
Ji*rid"d by a to find the ratio of the increments ofx" and r, and then dropped
terms involving o, thus obtaining the fluxion of *". Berkeley said that
Newton first did give * an increment but then let it be zero' This, he said, is
a defiance of the law of contradiction and the fluxion obtained was really
0/0. Berkeley attacked also the method of differentials, as presented by
I'i{ospital and others on the Continent. The ratio of the differentials, he
44. George BerLel ey: Ttu Wotk, G. Bell and Sons, 1898, Vol' 3, l-51'
428 cALcuLUs rN THE ETcHTEET{TH cENTURy
said, should determine the secant and not the tangent; one undoes this
error by neglecting higher differentials. Thus, ..by virtue of a twofold
mistnte you arrive, though not at a science, yet at the truth,,, because errors
were compensating for each other. He also picked on the second differential
d (dr) because it is the difference of a quantity dx that is itself rhe least dis-
cernible quantity. He says, "In every other science men prove their con-
clusions by their principles, and not their principles by the conclusions."
As for the derivative regarded as the ratio of the evanescent increments
iny and x or dy and dr, these were "neither finite quantities, nor quantities
infinitely small, nor yet nothing." These rates of change were but,.the ghosts
of departed quantities. Certainly . . . he who can digest a second or third
fluxion . . . need not, methinks, be squeamish about any point in Divinity.,,
He concluded that the principles of fluxions were no clearer than those of
Christianity and denied that the object, principles, and inferences of the
modern analysis were more distinctly conceived or more soundly deduced
than religious mysteries and points of faith.
A reply to the Aralgst was made by James Jurin (1684-1750). In 1734
he published Gcometry, No Friend to hfidtlitg, in which he maintained that
fluxions are clear to those versed in geometry. He then tried ineffectually to
explain Newton's moments and fluxions. For example, Jurin defined the
limit of a variable quantity as "some determinate quantity, to which the
variable quantity is supposed continually to approach,' and to come nearer
than any given difference. However, then he added, .,but never to go
beyond it." This definition he applied to a variable ratio (the difference
quotient). Berkeley's crushing answer, entitled A Defensc of Fruthinking in
Matlunatics (1735),45 indicated that Jurin was trying to defend what he did
not understand. Jurin replied, but did not clarify matters.
Benjamin Robins (1707-51) then entered the fray with articles and a
book, ..4 Discourse Concerning the Nature and Certaintg of Sir Isaat Newton, s
Mcthod of Fluxions and of Prime and Ultimate Ratios (1735). Robins neglected
the moments of Newton's first paper but emphasized fluxions and prime and
ultimate ratios. He defined a limit thus: "We define an ultimate magnitude
to be a limit, to which a varying magnitude can approach within any degree
of nearness whatever, though it can never be made absolutely equal to it.,,
Fluxions he considered to be the right idea, and prime and ultimate ratios
as only an explanation. He added that the method of fluxions is established
without recourse to limits despite the fact that he gave explanations in terms
of a variable approaching a limit. Infinitesimals he disavowed.
To answer Berkeley, Colin Maclaurin (1698-1746), in his Treatise of
to establish the rigor of the calculus. It was a
Fluxions (1742), attempted
commendable effort but not correct. Like Newton, Maclaurin loved geom-
45. George Berkeley: The Works, G. Bell and Sons, 1898, Vol. 3,53J9.
THE ATTEMPIS rO SUPPLY RrCOR rN THE CALCULUS 429
etry, and therefore tried to found the doctrine of fluxions on the geometry
of the Greeks and the method of exhaustion, particularly as used by Archi-
medes. He hoped thereby to avoid the limit concept. His accomplishment
was to use geometry so skillfully that he persuaded others to use it and
neglect analysis.
The Continental mathematicians relied more upon the formal manipu-
lation of algebraic expressions than on geometry. The most important
representative of this approach is Euler, who rejected geometry as a basis for
the calculus and tried to work purely formally with functions, that is, to
argue from their algebraic (analytic) representation.
He denied the concept of an infinitesimal, a quantity less than any
assignable magnitude and yet not 0. In tris Institutiones of 1755 he argued,a6
There is no doubt that every quantity can be diminished to such an

extent that it vanishes completely and disappears. But an infinitely small
quantity is nothing other than a vanishing quantity and therefore the
thing itself equals 0. It is in harmony also with that definition ofinfinitely
small things, by which the things are said to be less than any assignable
quantity; it certainly would have to be nothing; for unless it is equal to 0,
an equal quantity can be assigned to it, which is contrary to the
hypothesis.
Since Euler banished differentials he had to explain how dgldx, which

was 0/0 for him, could equal a definite number. He does this as follows:
Since for any number n, n.0 : 0, then n : 010. The derivative is just a
convenient way of determining 0/0. To justify dropping (dx)2 in the presence
ofa dr Euler says (dx)2 vanishes before dr does, so that, for example, the ratio
of dx + (dx)2 to dr is I . He did accept co as a number, for example, as the
sum I + 2 + 3 +. ". He also distinguished orders of oo. Thus al| : a,
b:ut al(dx)2 is infinite to the second order, and so on.
Euler then proceeds to obtain the derivative of g : az. He gives * the
increment <,r; the increment of y is q : 2t- * a2 znd. the ratio of 1/co is
2x + .. He then says that this ratio approaches 2x the smaller ar is taken.
However, he emphasizes that these difierentials q and a are absolutely zero
and that nothing can be inferred from them other than their mutual ratio,
which is in the end reduced to a finite quantity. Thus Euler accepts un-
qualifiedly that there exist quantities that are absolutely zero but whose
ratios are finite numbers. There is more " reasoning" of this nature in
Chapter 3 of the Institutiones, where he encourages the reader by remarking
that the derivative does not hide so great a mystery as is commonly thought
and which in the mind of many renders the calculus suspect.
As another example of Euler's reasoning, let us take his derivation ofthe
46. Opera, (l), t0,69.

43O CALCULUS IN lrrE ETGHTTENTH CENTURY
differential ofy : lqg *, in section lB0 of his Institutiones (1755). Replacing

x by x * dr gives
dy:tos(x + dx) - logx: r.s(r + f;).

Now he calls upon a result in Chapter 7 of Volume I of his Inlroductio (17+B),
z2 zB z4
(57) log" (l + z) -234 J--- + ...
Replacing z by dxlx give
- dx dtz
dv:;-*+# drca
Since all the terms beyond the first one are evanescent, we have
d(tog O :4.
We should keep in mind that Euler's texts were the standard of his day.
What Euler did contribute in his formalistic approach was to free the calculus
from geometry and base it on arithmetic and algebra. This step at least
prepared the way for the ultimate justification of the calculus on the basis
of the real number system.
Lagrange, in a paper of I 772 a7 and in his ThCorfu dzsforutions analytiquzsao
made the most ambitious attempt to rebuild the foundations of the calculus.
The subtitle ofhis book reveals his folly. It reads: " Containing the principal
theorems of the differential calculus without the use of the infinitely small,
or vanishing quantities, or limits and fluxions, and reduced to the art of
algebraic analysis of finite quantities."
Lagrange criticizes Newton's approach by pointing out that, regarding
the limiting ratio of arc to chord, Newton considers chord and arc equal not
before or after vanishing, but when they vanish. As Lagrange correctly points
out, "That method has the great inconvenience of considering quantities in
the state in which they cease, so to speak, to be quantities; for though we can
always properly conceive the ratios of two quantities as long as they remain
finite, that ratio offers to the mind no clear and precise idea, as soon as its
terms both become nothing at the same time." Maclauin's Treatise of
Flu*ions, he says, shows how difficult it is to demonstrate the method
of fluxions. He is equally dissatisfied with the little zeros (infinitesimals) of
Leibniz and Bernoulli and with the absolute zeros of Euler, all of which,
" although correct in reality are not sufficiently clear to serve as foundation
ofa science whose certitude should rest on its own evidencc."
47. Nouo. Mlm, de l'Acad. de Bcrlin, 1772, pub. 1774 : (Euwcs, 3, 441-76.
48. 1797;2nd ed., l8l3 : (Euares,9.
THE ATTEMPIS TO SUPPLY RICOR IN TIIE CALCULUS 43t
Lagrange wished to give the calculus all the rigor of the demonstrations
of the ancients and proposed to do this by reducing the calculus to algebra,
which, as we noted above, included infinite series as extensions of poly-
nomials. In fact, for Lagrange, function theory is the part of algebra con-
cerned with the derivatives of functions. Specifically Lagrange proposed to
use power series. with becoming modesty he remarks that it is strange that
this method did not occur to Newton.
He now wants to use the fact that any function ;f(*) can be expressed
thus:
(58) f(z + h) :f(r) + ?h i qh2 a rho * rla * "'
wherein the coefficients, ?,4,r,'.. involve , but are independent of fr'
However, he wishes to be sure before proceeding that such a power series
expansion is always possible. Of course, he says, this is known through any
,rumbe. of familiar examples, but he does agree that there are exceptional
cases. As exceptional cases Lagrange has in mind those in which some deriva-
tive of;f(x) bicomes infinite and those in which the function and its deriva-
tives become infinite. These exceptions happen only at isolated Points;
hence, with Lagrange they do not count. In a similar cavalier fashion he
deals with a secorrd difficulty. Lagrange and Euler accepted without question
that a series expansion containing integral and fractional powers of I was
surely possible, but Lagrange wished to eliminate the need for fractional
porr".t. Fractional Powers, he believed, could arise only if/(r) contained
radicals. But these, ioo, he dismisses as exceptional cases' Hence he is ready
to proceed with (58).
By a somewhat involved but purely formal argument Lagrange con-
cludes that we get 2q from y' in the same way that we get P fromrf(r), and a,
similar conclusi,on holds ficr the other coefficients r, J, " ' in (58)' Hence if
we let, be denoted by .f '(*) and designate by -f'(*) a function derived from
f '(x) as f '(*) is derived from;f(x), then
p : "f'(r), t: L-r'@), ,: {!r"ti,-..,
and so (58) gives
J@ + h) :f(x) + hJ'@) +fff Al * "'.

Lagrange now concludes that the final " expression has the advantage
of showing liow the terms of the series depend on each other, and especially
how when one knows how to form the first derivative function, one can form
all the derivative functions which enter the series." A little later he adds,
..For one who knows the rudiments of the differential calculus it is clear that
these derivative functions coincide with dyldx, 6'yldx',' ' ' '"
432 CALCULUS IN THE EIGHTTENTH CENTURY
Lagrange has yet to show how one derives p or f' (x) from;f(r). Here he
uses (58) and neglects all terms after the second. Then,f(x + h) -f(x) : ph.
He divides by and concludes that p : f' (rc) .
i
Actually Lagrange's assumption that a function can be expanded in
a power series is one weak point in the scheme. The criteria now known
for such an expansion involve the existence of derivatives, and this is what
Lagrange sought to avoid. His arguments to justify the power series only
added to the confusion about which functions can be so expanded. Even if
such an expansion is possible, Lagrange shows how to calculate the coeffi-
cients only ifwe can get the first one, that is,rf'(r); and here he does the same
crude thing his predecessors did. Finally, the question of the convergence of
the series (58) is really not discussed. He does show that for i small enough
the last term kept is greater than what is neglected. He also gives in this
book the Lagrange form of the remainder in a Taylor expansion (Chap. 20,
sec. 7), but it plays no role in the above development. Despite all these weak-
nesses, Lagrange's approach to the calculus met great favor for quite some
time. Later it was abandoned.
Lagrange believed he had dispensed with the limit concept. He did
agreeae that the calculus could be founded on a theory of limits but said the
kind of metaphysics one must employ is foreign to the spirit of analysis.
Despite the inadequacies of his approach, he did contribute, as did Euler,
to divorcing the foundations of analysis from geometry and mechanics; in
this his influence was decisive. While this separation is not pedagogically
desirable, since it bars intuitive understanding, it did make clear that
logically analysis must stand on its own feet.
Toward the end of the century the mathematician, soldier, and ad-
ministrator Lazare N. M. Carnot (1753-1823) wrote a popular, widely sold
book, Rrflexions sur la mitaphysique du calcul hfinitisimal (1797), in which he
sought to make the calculus precise. He tried to show that the logic rested on
the method of exhaustion and that all the ways of treating the calculus were
but simplifications or shortcuts whose logic could be supplied by founding
them on that method. After much thought he, like Berkeley, ended up
concluding that errors in the usual arguments of the calculus were com-
pensating for each other.
Among the multitude of efforts to rigorize the calculus, a few were on the
right track. The most notable of these were d'Alembert's and, earlier, Wallis's.
D'Alembert believed that Newton had the right idea and that he himself
was merely explaining Newton's meaning. In his article " Diff€rentiel "
in the famous Encydopidie ou Dictionnaire Raisonni des Scimces, des Arts, et des
Mitins (1751-80), he says, " Newton has never regarded the differential
calculus as a calculus of infinitesimals, but as a method of prime and ulti-
49. (Euores, 1,325.

THE ATTEMPTS TO SUPPLY RICOR IN TIIE CALCULUS 433
mate ratios, that is to say, a method of finding the limit of these ratios." But
d'Alembert defined a differential as "an infinitely small quantity or at least
smaller than any assignable magnitude." He did believe the calculus of
Leibniz could be built up on three rules ofdifferentials; however, he favored
the derivative as a limit. In his pursuit of the use of limits he, like Euler,
argued that 0/0 may be equal to any quantity one wishes.
In another article, " Limite, " he says : " The theory of limits is the true
metaphysics of the calculus. . . . It is never a question of infinitesimal quan-
tities in the differential calculus: it is uniquely a question of limits of finite
quantities. Thus the metaphysics of the infinite and infinitely small quan-
tities, larger or smaller than one another, is totally useless to the differential
calculus." Infinitesimals were merely a manner of speaking that avoided the
lengthier description in terms of limits. In fact, d'Alembert gave a good
approximation to the correct definition of limit in terms of a variable quan-
tity approaching a fixed quantity more closely than any given quantity,
though here too he talks about the variable never reaching the limit. How-
ever, he did not give a formal exposition of the calculus that incorporated
and utilized his basically correct views.
He, too, was vague on a number of Points; for example, he defined the
tangent to a curve as the limit of the secant when the two Points of inter-
section become one. This vagueness, especially in his statement of the notion
of limit, caused many to debate the question of whether a variable can reach
its limit. Since there was no explicit, correct Presentation, d'Alembert
advised students of the calculus, " Persist and faith will come to you."
Sylvestre-Frangois Lacroix (1765-1843), in the second edition (lBI0-
l8lg) of his Traiti du calcul dffirentiel et du calcul intCgtal had the idea more
explicitly that the ratio of two quantities, each of which approaches 0, can
approach a definite number as a limit. He gives the ratio axl(ax + r') and
notes that this ratio is the same as al(a * *), and the latter approaches I as
* approaches 0. Moreover, he points out that I is the limit even when x
approaches 0 through negative values, Ilowever, he also speaks of the ratio
of the limits when these are 0 and even uses the symbol 0/0' He does intro-
duce the differential dy ofa function y : -f(r) in terms ofthe derivative; that
is, dg : f'(x) dx. Hence if g : axs, dy : 3*'d*. He first used the term
" differential coefficient" for the derivative; thus 3a*2 is the difierential
coefficient.
Almost every mathematician of the eighteenth century made some
effort or at least a pronouncement on the logic of the calculus, and though
one or two were on the right track, all the eflorts were abortive. The dis-
tinction between a very large number and an infinite " number" was hardly
made. It seemed clear that a theorem that held for any z must hold for z
infinite. Likewise a difference quotient was replaced by a derivative, and a
sum of a finite number of terms and an integral were hardly distinguished'
434 CALCULUS rN THE ETGHTEENTH CENTURY
Mathematicians passed from one to the other freely. In 1755, in his Inslitu-
tioncs, Euler distinguished between the increment in a function and the
differential of that function and between a summation and the integral, but
these distinctions were not immediately taken up. All the efforts could be
summed up in Voltaire's description of the calculus as "the art of numbering
and measuring o<actly a Thing whose Existence cannot, be conceived."
In view of the almost complete absence of any foundations, how could
the mathematicians proceed with the manipulation of the variety of func-
tions ? In addition to their great reliance upon physical and intuitive mean-
ings, they did have a model in mind-the simpler algebraic functions, such
as polynomials and rational functions. They carried over to all functions the
prop€rties they found in these explicit, concrete functions: continuity, the
existence of isolated infinities and discontinuities, expansion in power series,
and the existence of derivatives and integrals. But when they were obliged,
largely through the work on the vibrating string, to broaden the concept of
function, as Euler put it, to any freely drawn curves (Euler's mixed or
irregular or discontinuous functions), they could no longer use the simpler
functions as a guide. And when the logarithmic function had to be extended
to negative and complex numbers, they really proceeded without any
reliable basis at all; this iS why arguments on such matters were common.
The rigorization of the calculus was not achieved until the nineteenth
century.
Bibliography
Bernoulli, James l Operu, 2 vols., 1744, reprinted by Birkhaiiser, 1968.
3stn6r'lli, John: Opera Omnia, 4 vols., 1742, reprinted by Georg Olms, 1968.
Boyer, Carl B,z Tlu Conccpts oJ tlu Calculus, Dover (reprint), 1949, Chap. 4.
Brill, A. and M. Ndther: "Die Entwicklung der Theorie der algebraischen Funk-
tionen in dlterer and neuercr Zeit," Jahres. dar Deut. Math.-Vercin.,3, 189213,
107-566.
Cajori, Florian: " History of tle Exponential and Logarithmic Concep*," Amar.
Math. Monthly, 20, 1913, 5-14, 3547, 75-44, 107-17, 148-51, 173-42,
205-10.
A History oJ tlu Corceptions of Limits and Fluxions in Great Bitain rtom Newton
to Woodhousc, Open Court, 1919,
"The History of Notations of the Calculus," Annals of Math., (2),25, 1923,
t-46.
-:
Cantor, Moritz : Voilesungm ilbcr Gcschirhte dn Mathematik, B. G. Teubner, 1898 and
1924, Vols. 3 and, 4, relevant sections,
Davis, PhilipJ.: " Leonhard Euler's Integral: A Historical Profile of the Gamma
Function," Aner, Math. Monthly,66, 1959, 849-69.
Euler, Leonhard l Opera Omnia, B. G. Teubner and Orell Fiissli, l9l l-; see refer-
ences to specific volumes in the chapter.
43s
Fagnano, Giulio Carlo: Opru mabmatidu, 3 vols', Albrighi Segati, 1911.

Fnss, Paul H. vor.: Conespondancc matMmatiqu ct plrysique dt quclqws cil2brcs gdomitres
ttu XVIIICno silch, 2 vols., 1843, Johnson Reprint Corp., 1967'
Hofmann, Joseph E.: "Uber Jakob Bernoullis Beitrege zur Infinitesimal'mathe'
matik," L'Eweigruwnt Mathhnatiqu, (2), 2, 6l-171, 1956; also published
separately by kutitut de Math€matiques, GcnCve, 1957.
Mittag-Leffier, G. : " An Introduction to the Theory of Elliptic Functions,"
Annals of Math., (2),24, 1922-23,271-351.
Montucla, J. F.: Histoire &s matMmatiqtus, A. Blanchard (reprint), 1960, Vol. 3,
PP. l10-380.
Pierpont, James: " Mathcmatical Rigor, Past and Preent"' Anw. Math, Soc,
Bulletin, 34, L928, 23-53.
Shuik, D. J.t A Sowcc Book in Matlumatits, 1200-1800, Harvard University Press,
1969, pp. 333-38, 341-51' 37'l-91.
20
Infinite Series
Read Euler, read Euler, he is the

"rTj:::|ff::
l. Introduti.on
Infinite series were in the eighteenth century and are still today considered
an essential part of the calculus. Indeed, Newton considered series insepa-
rable from his method of fluxions because the only way he could handle even
slightly complicated algebraic functions and the transcendental functions
wan to expand them into in$nite series and differentiate or integrate term by
term. Leibniz in his first published papers of 1684 and 1686 also emphasized
" general or indefinite equations." The Bernoullis, Euler, and their contem-
poraries relied heavily on the use ofseries. Only gradually, as we pointed out
in the preceding chapter, did the mathematicians learn to work with the
elementary functions in closed form, that is, as simple analytical expressions.
Nwertheless, series were still the only representation for some functions and
the most effective means of calculating the elementary transcendental
functions.
The successes obtained by using infinite series became more numerous
as the mathematicians gradually extended their discipline' The difficulties
in the new concept were not recognized, at least for a while. Series were just
infinite polynomials and appeared to be treatable as such. Moreover, it
seemed clear, as Euler and Lagrange believed, that every function could be
expressed as a series.
2. Initial Work on Infinite Seiu

Infinite series, usually in the form of infinite geometric progressions with
I
common ratio less than 1, appear very early in mathematics. Aristotle even
recognized that such series have a sum. They appear sporadically among the
later medieval mathematicians, who considered infinite series to calculate
l. Phgsba, Book III, Chap.6,206b, 3-33.
$6
INITIAL W,ORK ON INFINTTE SERIES 437
the distance traveled by moving bodies when the velocity changes from one
period of time to another. Oresme, who had considered a few such series,
even proved in a tract, Quastiones Super Geometriam Euclidis (c' 1360), that the
harmonic series
llll
t+r+1+4+5+'..
is divergent by the method used today, namely, to replace the series by the
series of lesser terms
i*i*(}.i) *(i.*****) .
and to note that the latter series diverges because we can obtain as many
groups of terms each of magnitude 1/2 as we please. However, one must not
conclude that Oresme or mathematicians in general began to distinguish
convergent and divergent series.
lr his Varia R.esponsa (1593, Opera,347435) Vieta gave the formula for
the sum of an i4finite geometric progression. He took from Euclid's Elemnts
that the sum ofz terms ofal I az * " ' * oo is given by
sn- dt _dt.
Sr.
- At llg
Then if a1la, > l, a, approaches 0 as z becomes infinite, so that
a?
s-:f,-r_ar'
In the middle of the seventeenth century Gregory of Saint Vincent, in
his Opus Geotnetricum ( I 647), showed that the Achilles and the Tortoise
paradox could be resolved by summing an infinite geometric series. The
finiteness of the sum showed that Achilles would overtake the tortoise at a
definite time and place. Gregory gave the first e:<plicit statement that an
infinite series represents a magnitude, namely, the sum of the series, which
he called the limit of the series. He says the " terminus of a progression is the
end of the series to which the progression does not attain, even if continued
to infinity, but io which it can approach more closely than by any given
interval." He made many other statements that are less accurate and less
clear, but he did contribute to the subject and influenced many pupils'
Mercator and Newton (Chap. 17, sec. 2) found the series
log(1 + x) : x -io *l#3 +....

The observation wab'made that ttre series has an infinite value for x:2,
whereas, according to the left side, it should yield log 3. Wallis noted this
$B INFINTTE SERIES
arc cos .r
Figure 20.1
difficulty but could not explain it. Newton oltained many other series for
algebraic and transcendental functions. Thus, to obtain the series for arc
sin x, in 1666, he used the fact (Fig. 20.1) that the area OBC: (l 12)
arc sin r, so arc sin rc : I; \/T=7 dx - x{T17/2. He got the result by
expanding the right side into series, integrating term by term, and combining
the two series. He also obtained the series for arc tan *. In his De Analysi of
1669 he gave the series for sin *, cos r, arc sin x, and, ex. Some of these he got
from others by inverting a series, that is, solvingit for the independent variable
in terms of the dependent variable. His method of doing this is crude and
inductive. Nevertheless, Newton was immensely pleased with his derivation
of so many series.
Collins received Newton's De Analysi in 1669 and communicated the
results on series to James Gregory on December 24, 1670. Gregory answered
(Turnbull, Conespondence, l, 52-58 and 61-64) on February 15, 167l that he
had obtained other series, among them
tan.r : x + f; + ?r*" * #*, *...,

5 6l
secr: I +Z+T+*'+mx"+"'.
'
His derivations of these series are not known. Leibniz, too, obtained series
for sin x, cos r, and arctan x, presumably independently, in 1673. The
series for the transcendental functions were the most fertile method available
in the early stages of the calculus for handling these functions and are a
significant part of Newton's and Leibniz's work on the calculus.
These men and others who used the binomial theorem for fractional
and negative exponents to obtain many of the series not only ignored tJre
questions that arose from the use of series but had no proof of the binomial
theorem. They also accepted unquestioningly that t}re series was equal to the
function that was being o<panded.
TNTTTAL IVORK ON TNFINTTE SERTES 439
James Bernoulli in 17022 derived the series for sin x and cos * by using
expressions he had derived for sin nc in terms of sin a and then letting c ap-
proach 0 vrhile z becomes infinite, so that zcr approaches x while z sin cr, which
equals zd sin c/c, also approaches .r. Wallis had mentioned in the Latin
edition of his Algebra (1693) that Newton had given these series again in
1676; Bernoulli noted this remark but flailed to acknowledge Newton's
priority. Moreover, de Moivre gave a proof of Newton's results in the
Philosophical Transactions of 1698;8 though Bernoulli used and referred to this
journal in other work, he gave no indication that he was aware through this
source of Newton's work.
One ofthe major uses ofseries beyond their service in differentiation and
integration is to calculate special quantities, such as 7r and a, and the loga-
rithmic and trigonometric functions. Newton, Leibniz, James Gregory,
Cotes, Euler, and many others were interested in series for this purPose'
However, some series converge so slowly that they are almost useless for
calculation. Thus Leibniz in 1674a obtained the famous result
7t-llI
4:t-5+5-1+...
However, it would require about 100,000 terms to comPute z, even to the
accuracy obtained by Archimedes. Likewise, the series for log (l { r) con-
verges very slowly, so that many terms have to be taken into account to
achieve an accuracy of a few decimal places. This series was transformed in
various ways to produce more rapidly converging series. Thus James
Gregory (Exercitationes Geometrhae, 1668) obtained
;ffi+i-}:"+1""+l"u+ '
which proved to be more useful for the calculation of logarithms. The
problem of transforming a series into another that converges more rapidly
was pursued by many men throughout the eighteenth century. One such
transformation, due to Euler, is given in Section 4.
Still another use of series was initiated by Newton. Given the implicit
functionrf(r, y) : 0, to work with y as a function of * one wants the explicit
function. There may be several such explicit functions, as is evident in the
trivial case of x2 a gz - I : 0, which ias two solutions y : t \n-=V,
both emanating from the point (1,0). In this simple case the two solutions
can be expressed in terms of closed analytic expressions. But generally each
expression for y must be expressed as an infinite series in r. However, these
series are not necessarily power series, Particularly if the points at which the
2. Opera, 2, 921-29.
3. Vol. 20, 190-93.
4. Math. Schri,ftn, 5,88-92; also Acta Etud., 1682 : Math. Schtifttn,5, ll8-22'
440
expansions are sought are singular points (, : "f"

: 0) . In his Method of
Fluxions Newton published a scheme for determining the forms of the several
series, one for each explicit solution. His method, which uses what is known
as Newton's parallelogram, shows how to determine the first few exponents
in a series of the form
! : atx^ + dz*^'o + aax^*2n + "'.

The coefficients of the series can then be determined by the method of
undetermined coemcients. Actually Newton gave only specific examples,
from which one must infer the method.
The problem of determining the exponents in each series is troublesome,
Taylor, James Stirling, and Maclaurin gave rules; Maclaurin tried to extend
and prove them but made no progress, A proof of Newton's method was
given independently by Gabriel Cramer and Abraham G. Kdstner (1719-
rB00).
3. The Expansion oJ Functions

One of the problems faced by mathematicians in the late seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries was interpolation of table values. Greater accuracy of
the interpolated values of the trigonometric, logarithmic, and nautical
tables was necessary to keep pace with progress in navigation, astronomy,
and geography. The common method of interpolation (the word is Wallis's)
is called linear interpolation because it assumes that the function is a linear
function of the independent variable in the interval between two known
values. However, the functions in question are not linear; and the mathe-
maticians realized that a better method of interpolation was needed.
The method we are about to describe was initiated by Briggs in his
Arithmctia Logaithmba (1624), though the key formula was given by James
Gregory in a letter to Collins (Turnbull, Correspondnue, l, 45-48) of
November 23, 1670, and independently by Newton. Newton's work appears
in Lemma 5 of Book III of the Principia and in the Methodus Dffirentialis,
which, though published in l7l l, was written by 1676. The method uses
what are called finite differences and is the first major result in the calculus
of finite differences.
Suppose/(x) is a function whose values are known at a, a + c, a * 2c,
a*3c,...,a*nc.Let
L,f(a):f(a + c) -J@),
LJ@ + c) : f(a + 2c) - f(a + c),
LJ@ + 2c) :.f(o + 3c) - f(a + 2c),
THE EXPANSION OF FUNCTIONS 44'
Further, let
Lzf(a):Af(a+c) - Lf(o)
Lsf(a):Ll@+c) - L'f(o),
Then the Gregory-Newton formula states that

LIL - ,\
(r) f(a + h) : -f(o) + !, ot<., * '# 627@) + '' '.
Newton sketched a proof but Gregory did not.

To calculate a value of J@) at any value x between the known values,
one simply gives i the value * - a. This calculated value is not necessarily
the tru; value of the function ; what the formula yields is the value of a
polynomial in i that agrees with the true function at the special values a,
a+cra*2cr....
The Gregory-Newton formula was also used to carry out approximate
integration. Given a function, say g(*), to be integrated, perhaps in order to
find the area under the corresponding curve, one uses the values ofg(x) to
obtain g(a), g(a + c), g(a + 2c),. . . and their differences and higher-order
differences; these values are substituted in (l). Then (t) gives a polynomial
approximation to g(.r), and, as Newton points out, since polynomials are
..udily i.rt.gruted, one gets an approximation to the desired integral ofg(*)'
Gregory also applied (t) to the function (1 + d) '' He knew the value
of this fnnction at x : O, 1,2, 3,.' .. Then/(O) : l' A/(0) : a, L'l(O) :
d.2, znd.so on. Thus by letting a: O,c: 1, andi : x - 0in (l),andusing'
the values ofl(0), A/(0), .. . he got
(2) (r +d)*: 1 * **#a' +-(--ffi)ds +"'

Thus Gregory obtained the binomial expansion for general x.
The Gregory-Newton interPolation formula was used by Brook Taylor
to develop the most powerful single method for expanding a function into
an infinite series, The binomial theorem, division of the denominator of a
rational function into the numerator, and the method of undetermined co-
efficients are limited devices. In his Methodus hwrementorum Directa et Inttersa
(1715), the first publication in which he treated the calculus of finite dif-
i"r"rr".r, Taylor derived the theorem that still bears his name and which he
had stated in 1712. Incidentally, he praises Newton but makes no mention
of Leibniz's work of 1673 on finite differences, though Taylor knew this work'
Taylor's theorem was known to James Gregory in 1670 and was discovered
independently somewhat later by Leibniz; however, these two men did not
publish it. John Bernoulli did publish practically the same result in the Acta
442 INFINITE SERIES
Eruditomm of 1694; and though Taylor knew this result he did not refer to it.
His own " proof" was different. What he did amounts to letting c be A* in
the Gregory-Newton formula. Then, for o<ample, the third term on the
right side of (l) becomes
(3)
1,2
Taylor concluded that when Ar : 0, this term becomes hlf'(a) l2l, and, so
the entire Gregory-Newton formula becomes
(4) J@+ h) :f(a) +f'(a)h+f'(a)fi+f-t)#.* . .
Of course Taylor's method was not rigorous, nor did he consider the question
of convergence.
Taylor's theorem for a : 0 is now called Maclaurin's theorem. Colin
Maclaurin, who succeeded James Gregory as professor at Edinburgh, gave
this special case in his Treatisc of Fluxions (1742) and. stated that it was but a
special case of Taylor's result. However, historically it has been credited to
Maclaurin as a separate theorem. Incidentally, Stirling gave this special case
for algebraic functions in l7l7 and for general functions in his Methodus
Difncntialis of 1730.
Maclaurin's proof of his result is by the method of undetermined
coefficients. He proceeds as follows. Let
(5) .f("):A+Bz *Czz l Dzo + "'.
Then
: B + 2Cz * 3Dz2 I ...
"f'(") :2c
l'k) + 6Dz + .. .
Let z : 0 in each equation and determine A,8,C,. . .. He did not worry

about convergence and proceeded to use tlte result,
+. Tlu Manipulation of Seiu

James and John Bernoulli did a great deal of work with serics. James wrote
five papers between 1689 and 1704 that were published by his nephew
Nicholas (1695-1726) (John's son) as a supplement to James's Ars Con-
jectandi (1713). Most of the work in these papers is devoted to the use of
series representations of functions for the purposes of differentiating and
integrating the functions and obtaining areas under curves and lengths of
curves. While these applications were a substantial contribution to the cal-
culus, there were no especially novel features. Ilowever, some of the methods
TIIE MANIPULATTON OF SERIES M3
he used to sum series are worth noting because they illustrate the nature of
mathematical thought in the eighteenth century.
In the fust paper (1689),6 he starts with the series
(6) *:i** *5*"" a
from which
(7) N -!,: ** ** !**....

He now subtracts (7) from (6) ; in this process each term on the right side
of (7) is subtracted from the term above it. This yields
aa4A
(B) i:frc+r-u+TTc+""
This is a correct result but incorrectly derived, because the original series is
divergent. James says that the procedure is questionable and should not be
used without some circumspection.
He then considers the ordinary harmonic series and shows tlrat its sum
is infinite.8 He considers the terms
(e)
ll +"'+ I
n*l'n12 F
-J--
and says this sum is larger ttrar. (nz - n)'(llnz) because there ate nz - n
terms and each is at least as large as the last. But
(n,-n)(*J:,-;
Ilence if we add 1/z to (9)
l-r I - I +"'+-)I'I
n' n+l'n*2
Thus, he says, we can go from one group of terms to another, each group
having a sum greater than l. Hence we can obtain a finite number of terms
whose sum is as large as we please; and therefore the sum of the whole series
must be infinite. Consequently, he also points out, the sum of an infinite
series whose "last" term vanishes can be hfinite; this is contrary to his earlier
belief and the belief of many eighteenth-century mathematicians, including
Lagrange.
5. Opta, l, 375-402.
6. Otera, l, 392.
4+* rNFrNrrE sERrEs
John Bernoulli had previously given a different ..proof,' of the infinite

sum of the harmonic series, It runs thus:
(ro) i***-i*i* :+*******..

\r.2 -r-***-I*...)
-(t '2.3 ' *(+.+-**"I* )
.(r!*al* ).(*+*..)*...
Now, using (B), wherein we Iet a and c be l, we ger from (10) that
lll
,.+ 5+ 4+...:
r+(r_i) .(,_i_*) *(,_i_*_,,1) *
:,*+*j*|*...
If we let A : ll2 + I/3 + ll4 + ll5 *..., we have proved that A :
| + A. If A were finite, this result would be impossible.
In the succeeding four tracts on series James Bernoulli does many things
so loosely that it is difficult to believe he had ever recognized the need for
caution with infinite series. For example, in the second tract (16g2),2 he
argues as follows : From the formula for a geometrical progression we have
| + ll2 + ll4 a ll9 +...:2. Then by taking l/3 of both sides l/3 *
116 + lll2 +...: 213, and. by taking l/5 of both sides of the original
series l/5 + l/10 + ll20 +.. .: 215, and so on. Hence the sum of the left
sides, which is the entire harmonic series, equals the sum of the right sides,
or
r +| +* *i * ...:2 +Z*Z*...: r(r** *11 . ).

Hence the sum of the odd terms is half the sum of the harmonic series. Then
ll2+ll4 + l/6 + ll9 +.'. is also ll2 the harmonic series, so thar
I + r/3 + l/5 + ...: rl2 + 114 + l/6 +....
In the third tract (1696) I he writes
m*n
: !*(, . o*)-' : !_ _ # *,#" _...,
7. Opcra, l, 517-42.
8, Opera,2,745-64.
THE MANIPULATION OF SERIES 445
and when z: rfl,
(ll)
tltl
2mrnmm--+--...,
which he describes as a not inelegant paradox.
In the second paper on series he replaced the general term by a sum or
difference of two other terms, and then performed other operations that lead
to specific results. This replacement is comect for absolutely convergent series
but not for conditionally convergent ones. Hence he got wrong results
which he also described as paradoxes.
One ofJames's very interesting results deals with the series of reciprocals
of the zth powers of the natural numbers, that is, with I + ll2 + 1/3' +
I 14 + .. . . James proved that the sum of the odd-numbered terms is to the
sum of the even-numbered terms as 2o - I is to I' This is correct fot n Z 2.
However, James did not hesitate to apply it for the case n : 1 ur.6 n : ll2.
This last result he found paradoxical.
Another result on series due to James says that the sum of the series
I + ll\/2 + lt\/S f.' . is infinite because each term is greater than the
corresponding term of the harmonic series. Ilere the comparison test was
used effectively.
The series that provoked th€ greatest discussion and controversy, which
occurs when I and' m in (l l) are 1, is
(12) I - I + I - 1+...
It seemed clear that by writing the series as
(r3) (r - l) + (t - l) + (l - l) +...
the sum should be 0. It also seemed clear that by writing the series as
I - (l - 1) - (1 - l) - (1 - l) -. . .
the sum should be l. However, if one denotes the sum of (12) by S, then
S: 1 - S, so that S: ll2; and this is in fact Bernoulli's result in (11)'
Guido Grandi (167I-1742), a professor of mathematics at the University of
Pisa, in his little book Quadratura Circuti et Hgperbolae (The Quadrature of
Circles and Hyperbolas, 1703), obtained the third result by another method'
He set r : I in the expansion
I :l-**x2-xs+...
(14)
+r
and obtained -l
|:r-r+l-r+'...
446 rNnNrrE sERrEs
Grandi therefore maintained that I /2 was the sum of the series (12). He
also argued that since the sum of (12) in the form (13) was 0, he had proved
that the world could be created out of nothing.
In a letter to Christian Wolf (1678-1754), published in the Acta,s
Leibniz also treated the series (12). He agreed with Grandi's result but
thought it should be possible to obtain it \,vithout resorting to his argument.
Instead, Leibniz argued tiat if one takes the first term, the sum of the first
two, the sum of the first three, and so forth, one obtains l, 0, 1, 0, I, . . ..
Thus I and 0 are equally probable; one should therefiore take the arithmetic
mean, which is also the most probable value, as the sum. This solution was
accepted by James and John Bernoulli, Daniel Bernoulli, and, as we shall
see, Lagrange. Leibniz conceded that his argument was more metaphysical
than mathematical but went on to say that there was more metaphysical
truth in mathematics than was generally recognized. However, he was
probably much more influenced by Grandi's argument than he himself
realized. For when, in later correspondence, Wolf wished to conclude that
l-2+4- B+tU...:+
l-3+g- 27+tr...:i
by using an extension of Leibniz's own probability argument, Leibniz
objected. He pointed out that series that have sums have decreasing terms,
and (12) is at least a limit of series with decreasing terrns, as is evident from
(ta) by letting .r approach I from below.
Really extensive work on series began about 1730 with Euler, who
aroused tremendous interest in the subject, But there was much confusion
in his thinking. To obtain the sum of
1- I + I - 1+ I -'..
Euler argued that since
(15)
*:l+r+x2+*s,
tlrenwhent:-1,
I
(16)
2
1- I + I - I +...
so that the sum is I/2.
Also, when x : -2, (15) shows that
I
(17) ::l-2+22-2s+...;
5
9, Acta Erud. Sul?lema.t?rn, 5, 1713, 264-70 : Math. Schri'ftcn, 5, 582-47,

THE MANIPUI"ATION OT SERIES 447
hence the sum of the right-hand series is 1/3. As a third example, since
(lB)
then for r : I we have
lr: r -2+3-4+...
Again, since
l-x : : |- * +"',
ffi (I - tc)(l + tc)-z 3x 5rz - 7xs
then for *: I we have

(re) 0: I - 3+5 - 7 +....
There are numerous examples of such arguments in his work'
One sees from (lB), for .r : - 1, that
(20) co:l*2+3+4+5+..'.
This Euler accepted. Moreover one sees from (15), for .r : 2, that
(21) -l:1+2+4+8+....
Since the right-hand side of (21) should exceed the right-hand side of (20),
the sum I + 2 + 4 + B +... should exceed o. According to (21), it yields
be a sort of limit between the positive
- I . Euler concluded that co mustrespect
and negative numbers and in this resembles 0.
Apropos of (19), Nicholas Bernoulli (1687-1759) said, in a letter to
Eulerofl743, that the sum ofthis series t - 3 + 5 - 7 + "'is -oo(-I)-'
Euler,s result of 0 he called an unsolvable contradiction. Bernoulli also
noted that from (15) one gets' for x : 2,
-l:l+2+4+B+...;
and from
I
(22)
| -x-x' : I + x + 2rc2 + 1xs +...,
forx:lonegets
-l:l+l+2+3+....
The fact that two diflerent series give - I is also an unsolvable contradiction,
for otherwise one could equate the two series.
In one paper Euler did point out that series can be used only for values
448 rYFrNrrE sERrEs
of * for which they converge. Nevertheless, in the very same paper 10 he

concluded that
(23) ...+ + +1 + t * x + x2+ xs +...-- o.

x'x
His argument was that
*:x+x2+r3+...
and
xl .ll1
l+-+--*--*"'.
x-l I --
t x tc'
x
But the two left sides add up to 0, while the two right sides add up to the
original series,
fn an earlier paper,11 Euler started with the series
. fi3 tt5
(24) /:srnx:*-31 +51 -...
or
.xxsxi
(2s) *
' - , rt, - st, * "': o'
By using algebraic considerations applied to (25) as a polynomial of i4finite

degree,andby using the theorem on the relation between roots and coefficients
of an algebraic equation, Euler proved that12
lllzr2
I_ _-L _ r--._ _l
' -I2',32',52' -B
llltg
___r_
F-F-rF-"':32
lll'-a
_-!_I__r
14',34 ' 54 ' -96
lll 526
l5 35 ' 56 - 1536
lll..,o
-t.+F+*+ :m
10. Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop., ll, 1739, 116-27, pub. 1750 : Olns, (l), 14, 95M3.
ll. Comm. Acad. Sci. Pebop.,7, 1734135, 123-34, pub. 1740 : Opera, (l), 14, 23-86.
12. He used the symbol p for z until 1739; r had been introduced by William Jones in
1706.
THE MANIPULAnON OF SERIES 449
In the same paper, he first gave the product expansion
(26) ,io,: (r - #X' - #X' - #)

His argument was simply that sin s has the zetos !zr, *2t, '" (he discards
the root 0), and so like every polynomial must have a linear factor corre-
sponding to each of its roots. (lrt 17 43ra and in his Introduttio,LL he gave
another derivation to meet criticism.) He treated the right side of (26) as a
polynomial, which he set equal to zeto, and again by using the relation
between the roots and the coefficients he deduced that
llll ,6
n2
12,22',32',42
--r-r--L-
llll
_-J--r--!-
t4
14,24',34'44 ' 90'
and similar sums for higher even powers in the denominator.

In a later paperlE Euler obtained one of his finest triumphs,
>i":(-t1'-' ffiu'^'
Y=1
where the Bro are the Bernoulli numbers (see below). The connection with
the Bernoulli numbers was actually established by Euler a little later in his
Institutiones of 1755.16 He also gave in the l74O paper the sum )f=, (l/vn)
for the first few odd values of z but got no general expression for all odd z'
Euler also worked on harmonic series, that is, series such that the
reciprocals of the terms are in arithmetic progression. In particular he
showed 17 how one can sum a finite number of terms of the ordinary harmonic
series by using the logarithm function. He starts with
(27) ros(r +):l- +,.+"-+-*

Then
l: .*(#) . L* - L*. +^
13. Olera, (l), 14 138-55.

14. OPera, (l),8, 168.
15. Comm. Acarl. Sci. Petrol., 12, 1740, 53-96, pub. 1750 = Oleru, (l), l+,407-$2'
16. Part :
II, Chap. 5, \1124 Opera, (l)' 10, 327.
:
l?. Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop., 7, 1734/35, 150-61, pub. 1740 O|erq (l), 14, 87-100'
450 INFINITE SERTES
Now let x : l, 2, 3, . . . , n. These substitutions give

lllll
i:rog2+i-i*i_f+...
l3llltlô-
2 --o2 -.l-' -2.4- -3.8 -r', 4.16-
- : 5.32
.l . - -
',
- -
l4ttlt
: IocE "'
B - * - fr - m - s.248'r
I n*l I I I I
;: l%--n- -Tnl- 3o:s
a ,rr-t - -srru
-....
By adding and noting that each log term is a difference of two logarithms,
one gets
i*i*;* +f:bg(z+r) *|(r*i*i* .+)

tt. + I + I +.'.+ l\
-l(,*1.+*..*) + 4(r m EI 7) -...,
(28) r*|*;* +l:tog(,+r) +c,

where C represents the sum of the infinite set of finite arithmetic sums. The
value ofC was calculated approximately by Euler (it depends upon r, but
for large z the value ofz does not affect the result much) and he obtained
0.577218. This C is now known as Euler's constant and is denoted by y.
A more accurate representation of y is obtained nowadays as follows.
Subtract logz from both sides of (28). Now log(z + l) -logz:
log(l + l/z) and this approaches 0 as z --+ oo. Hence
(2e) ,: ]1i(t*i *i +...+* -.*,).

Incidentally, no simpler form than (29) has been found for Euler's constant,
whereas we do have various expressions fior z and a. Moreover, we do not
know today whether 7 is rational or irrational.
In his "De Seriebus Divergentibus " 18 Euler investigated the divergent
series
18. Novi Comm. Acad. Sci. Pebo!., 5, 175415,20t37, pub. 1760 : Opna, (l), 14,585-617.
TIIE MANIPULATION OF SERIES 45r
(30) !: x - (1!).r' + (2!)*s - (3!)r4 +"'

Formally this series satisfies the differential equation
(31) xzg'*y:x.
But this diflerential equation has the integrating factor x2e-7t', so that
f x.-rlt
(32) Y :,'l' Jo? dt
is a solution that can be shown by L'Hospital's rule to vanish with x' Euler
considered the series (30) to be the series expansion of the function in (32)
and (32) as the sum of the series (30). In fact he lets * : I and obtains
I - t +2! - 3! +4! - "':rf'**.

Jo t
The remarkable fact about the series (30) is that it can be used to obtain
good numerical values for the function (32) because, given a value of .r, if
we neglect all terms beyond a certain one, the absolute value ofthe remainder
can be shown to be smaller than the absolute value ofthe first ofthe neglected
terms. Hence the series can be used to obtain good numerical approximations
to the integral. Euler was using divergent series to advantage. The full
significance ofwhat these divergent series accomplished was not aPPreciated
for another 150 years. (See Chap. 47.)
Another famous result of Euler's in the area of series should be noted.
ln Ars Conjcctandi Jarnes Bernoulli, treating the subject of probability,
introduced the now widely used Bernoulli numbers. He sought a formula
for the sums of the positive integral powers of the integers and gave the
following formula without demonstration :
;. : #,"*' *'k -r!.\lu- 2)

(33) +f,n" + iB,o"-' a*n"-'
c(c - t)(c-2)(c-3)(r-4) Bunc - a * " '

2.3.4.5.6
This series terminates at the last positive power of z. The 82, Bo, Bu,. . . are
the Bernoulli numbers
(34) B,':|,.a. : -+, B": +,,a. : -180, a,o : *, '...

Bernoulli also gave the recurrence relation, which permits one to calculate
these coefficients.
452 INFINITE SERIES
Euler's result, the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula, is a generaliza-

tion.re Let rf(x) be a real-valued function of the real variable x. Then (in
modern notation) the formula reads
B;
(3s) Zru : ["rut a, - lval --r(o)] + u'@) -.r'(o)l
BiLr@)
+ - -f'(o)l+' '' + pr1fuzr1,lf"*-"1o) -Jr(ek-1)(0)l + ftk
where
(36) R*: !"

y<r**rr(*)pr**r(x) dx.
Here z and * are positive integers. Pr**r(*) is the (2ft + l)th Bernoulli
polynomial (which also appears in Bernoulli's Ars Conjectandi), which is given
by
(37) Pa@) : Exk + B, *k-r B- xk-Z B"
iG=lIi * 2.6= 4. + "' + Ii'
wherein B, : -ll2 and, Brn*r: 0 for k : 1,2,.... The series
- t>
(n) y<zr - o(o)l
(38) 17<zrc -
Ze
is divergent for almostalll(r) that occur in applications. Nevertheless, the
remainder B* is less than the first term neglected and so the series in (35)
gives a useful approximation to
)lt.
The Bernoulli numbers B, are often defined today by a relation given
later by Euler,so namely,
(3e) t(d - r)-1 :2u,!r.

Independently of Euler, Maclaurin2l arrived at the same summation
formula (35) but by a method a little surer and closer to that which we use
today. The remainder was first added and seriously treated by Poisson.22
Euler also introduced 23 a translormation of series, still known and
19. Comm. Acad. Sci. Pctrop., 6, 173213,68-97, pub. 1738 : Opera, (l), 14, 42-72; and,
Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,8, 1736, 147-58, pub. l74l : O?era, (l),14' 124-37.
20. Opera, (l), 14, 407-62.
21. Tnatise of Fluxions, 1742, p. 672,
22. Min. de l'Acad. des Sci., Inst. France,6, 1823,571-602, pub. 1827.
23. hrt. Cal. Di[., 1755, p.281.
TIIE MANIPULATION OF SERIES 453
used. Given a series )f;=o 6o, he wrote it as If,=o (- l)"o,' Then by a number
of formal algebraic steps he showed that
(40)
wherein the Ao denotes the nth finite difference (sec. 3). The advantage of
this transformation, in modern terms, is to convert a convergent series into
a more rapidly converging one. However, for Euler, who did not usually
distinguish convergent and divergent series, the transformation could also
t urrrfir- divergent series into convergent ones' If one applies ('[0) to
(41) I - I + I - I +...,
then the right side of ('10) yields l/2. Likewise for the series
(42) l-2+22-2s+24...
(40) gives
:+
(43) i,-,,"r,:It,l *|t-,1 *|t,l-1*r-,1
tn"r"."rrn. are, of course, the same as those Euler got above (see [16] and
tl7]) by taking the sum of the series to be the value of the function from
which the series is derived.
The spirit of Euler's methods should be clear' He is the great manipu-
lator and iointed the way to thousands ofresults later established rigorously.
one other famous series must be mentioned. In his Methofus Di,fermtialifa
James Stirling gave the series we now write
as
(44) Iogz! : (, . i) logz - z + loe t/-zn + h!,. h*.

. @?-1r,t-. -*' '
which is equivalent to
(4s) ,, : (:)" \/r*.*pffi:* * eF*rrr*.-, * ]

stirling gave the first five coefficients and a recurrence formula for determin-
ing the Jucceeding ones. Though the series for log z! is divergent, Stirling
cJculated logroll00Ol;, which is 2567 plus a decimal, to ten decimal places
by using only a few terms of his series. De Moivre in t 730 (Miscellanea
24. 1730, p. 135.
454 rNFrNTfE sERrEs
Analgtica) gave a similar formula. For large n, n! - (nll"{ffi; though

grven by de Moivre, it is known as Stirling's approximation.
5. Tigorurutrir Series
The eighteenth-century mathematicians also worked extensively with
trigonometric series, especially in their astronomical theory. The usefulness
of such series in astronomy is evident from the fact that they are periodic
functions and astronomical phenomena are largely periodic. This work
was the beginning ofa vast subject whose full significance was not appreci-
ated .in the eighteenth century. The problem that launched the use of
trigonometric series was interpolation, particularly to determine the positions
of the planets between those obtained by observation. The same series were
introduced in the early work on partial differential equations (see Chap. 22)
but curiously t-he two lines of thought were kept separate even though the
same men worked on both problems.
By a trigonometric series is meant any series of the form
(46)
i" - 2 (ancos nx a 0,, sin z*)
with an and D, constant. Ifsuch a series represents a function;f(*), then
(47) .":* Ii"ro)

cosnxdx, u:) t'"nsinnxdx
for z : 0, l, 2, . . .. The attainment of these formulas for the coefficients
was one of the chief results of the theory, though we shall say nothing at
present about the conditions under which these are necessarily the values
of a^ znd. b^.
As early as 1729 Euler had undertaken the problem of interpolation;
that is, given a function;f(*) whose values for x : n,n positive and integral,
are prescribed, to find;f(x) for other values of x. In 1747 he applied the
method he had obtained to a function arising in the theory of planetary
perturbations and secured a trigonometric series representation of the
function. In 175326 he published the method he had found in 1729.
First he tackled the problem when the given conditio ns are f(n) : I
for each z and sought a periodic solution that is I for integral *. His reasoning
it illustrates the analysis of the period. He tets/(x)
is interesting because : y,
and by Taylor's theorem writes
(48) /(r + r) =y +s' +f,f +lU *...

25. Noai Comm. Acad. Sci. Pttrop.,3, 1750/51, 3H5, pub. 1753 : Olcra, (l), 14,469-515.
TRICONOMETRIC SERIES 455
Since;f(r * l) is to equalf(x), y must satisfy the linear differential equation

of infinite order
(4e) u'+!ra' +|v'+"':0.

He now applied his method of solving linear ordinary diflerential equations
of finite order published in 1743 (see Chap. 2l). That is, he set up the
auxiliary equation
(50) z+f,zz+|,'+"':o.
This equation, in view of the series for a, is
e"-l: O.
Next he determines the roots of this last equation. fle starts with the
equation
(r +f)": r'
which is a polynomial of the zth degree. According to a theorem which

26 had proven' this
Cotes (1722) and Euler independently in his Intro&utia
polynomial has the linear factor z and the quadratic factors
(, * u)' - z(r + 1\ "o"?b ', r, k : r,2,. . ., .i'

By virtue of the trigonometric identity for sin z in terms of cos 2z tllese
factors are the same as
+( + i) "i"'l +'j-
The roots of (50) are not affected if we divide each flactor by 4 sins bln (fot
the respective ft), and so the quadratic factors are
zzZ
l+-+
4rr,#n
For z : @, the term zlnls 0. The quantity sin furln is replaced by furln, and
so the factors become
-2
1 -L -:-.
' ' 4tP#
26. Vol. I, Chap. 14.
456 INFINITE SERIES
To such a factor in the auxiliary equation (50) there correspond the roots
z : t i2kr, and hence the integral
a* sin 2kztx a A* cos 2krx
of (49). The linear factor z mentioned above gives rise to a constant integral.
Since;f(O) : I is an initial condition, Euler finally obtains
! : | + ) 1r"rir, 2kzrx + Ay(cos2bx - l)\.

&=l
The coefficients o1, and l* are still subject to the condition that f (n) : I
for each z-
This paper also contains a result which is formally identical with what
came to be called the Fourier expansion of an arbitrary function, as well as
the determination of the coefficients by integrals. Specifically Euler showed
that the general solution of the functional equation
-f(*):f(x - l) +x(x)
J@) : I: xG) dt * l-Zcos2nrx [i*u, cos2n,{ d{
rx -
+ 2 i sin2z",* *G) sin2nzt{ d('
?' J"
Here we have a function expressed as a trigonometric series in the year
1750-51. Euler maintained that his was the most general solution of the
interpolation problem. If so, it surely included the representation of poly-
nomials by trigonometric series. But, as we shall see in Chapter 22, Euler
denied this in the arguments on the vibrating string and related problems.
ln 1754 d'Alembert 27 considered the problem of the expansion of the
reciprocal of the distance between two planets in a series of cosines of the
multiples of the angle between the rays from the origin to the planets, and
here too the definite integral expressions for the coefficients in Fourier
series can be found.
In another work Euler obtains trigonometric series representations of
functions in a totally difierent fashion.2s lfe starts with the geometric series
g
),a"(cos* + isinx)n, i: \/=
r!=0
27 , Rtchzrches sur difiCrens points importans du systCme du monde, 1754, Vol. II, p. 66.
28. Noai Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,5, 175415, 164-204, pub. 1760 : Opera, (l), 14,542-a4;
see also Opera, (l), 15, 435-97, for another method.
TR.IGONOMETRIC SERIES 457
and by summing it obtains

t
i=;(co,, +-fiilr'
He then uses standard formulas to replace powers of cos x and sin * by
cos nx and sin nx (which amounts to de Moivre's theorem) and obtains
I. : o"{"ot ttx I i si.- nx)'

i- aG6-s, +1ffi, ,Z
By multiplying numerator and denominator on the left by the complex
conjugate of the denominator, seParatin$ the z : 0 term on the right and
p"tti"g it on the left side, dividing through by a, and separating real and
imaginary parts, he obtains
a cy t_: !_-:
T--ocos x + a2 - iZ-r ,*
- -"""
"or
r*
n=1
asinx € - .
Z,"$nn,
T=i,cos;TA: n=''
So f;ar his results are not surprising. He now lets a : tI and obtains, for
example,
I
(51) t* cos 'r * cos 2* + cos 3r + cos 4* + ""
i:
(Actually the series are divergent.) He then integrates and obtains
(s2) T :sin* +|sin2x * |sin3x +"',

(which holds for 0 < x<t andequals 0 for* : 0 and z) and
(53) f: si,,, - |.i,,2, + ]ri.,3* - |sin

4x *"',
(which converges in -r < tc < n). An integration of the Iatter and
evaluation at * : O to determine the constant of integration gives
(54) i -+: -cos, + |"orz, - |"or3r + +cos4x - ""

Euler believed that the latter two series [which are convergent in
(-n < * < z)] represent the respective functions for all values of x'
Moreover, by successively diflerentiating (51), Euler deduced that
sinr 1 2 sin2r * 3sin 3x t "' : 0
cos, t 4ccx2x * 9 cos 3x +"':0
458 INFINITE SERIES
and oth6r such equatiors. Daniel Bernoulli, who had also given expansions
such as (52), (53), and (54), recognized that the series represent the functions
only for certain ranges ofr values.
ln 1757, while studying perturbations caused by the sun, Clairaut 2e
took a far bolder step. He says he will represent azy function in the form
(s5) f@ : Ao 12),1'^cosnx.
,r=1
Hc rcgards the problem as one of interpolation and so uses the function
values at thc *-values
2zt 4n 6n
T' T' T'"'
and after some manipulations obtains
n":iz4H
e":tr)r(w).o"w.
By lctting & become infinite, Clairaut arrives at
(s6) n":+l:" f(*) cosnx dx,
which is the correct formula for the z4o.

Lagrange, in his research on the propagation of sound,3o obtained the
series (51) and defended the fact that the sum is l/2. Yet neither Euler nor
commented on the remarkable fact that they had expressed non-
pcriodic functions in the form of trigonometric series. However, somewhat
later they did observe this fact in another connection. D'Alembert had often
given the example of xzts as a function that could not be expanded in a
trigonometric series. Lagrange showed him in a lettersl of August 15, 1768
that rP/3 can indeed be expressed in the form
xzts _ a + Dcos2x + ccos4x *,,..
D'Alembert objected and gave counterarguments, such as that the deriva-
tives of the two sides are not equal for x : 0. Also, by Lagrange's method
one could express sin * as a cosine series; yet sin r is an odd function,
29. Hisr, dt l'Acad. ths Sci., Patis, 1754,545 ff., pub. 1759.
30. Mitc. Taw., I, 1759 = (Euorcs, l, 1lO.
31. Iagraryc, CEwn*, 13, 116.
CONTINUED FRACTIONS 459
whereas the right side would be an even one. The problem was not resolved
in the eighteenth century.
ln Euler, working on a problem in astronomy' actually obtained
1777,32
the coefficients of a trigonometric series by using the orthogonality of the
trigonometric functions, the method we use today. That is, from
(57) r@ :? + )o*","ff
he deduced that
'-:| l;<'l "o"ff *.

He had first obtained it, in the immediately preceding paper, in a somewhat
complicated fashion, then realized that he could obtain it direcdy by multi-
plying both sides of (57) by cos(vrxll), integrating term by term, and apply-
ing the relations
if v*k
l,*,7.*ff*:fi, if v:k*0
if v:t:0
Throughout all of the above work on trigonometric series ran the
paradox that, although all sorts of functions were being represented by
irigonometric series, Euler, d'Alembert, and Lagrange never abandoned
the position that arbitrary functions could not be represented by such series'
The paradox is partially explained by the fact that the trigonometric series
were assumed to hold where other evidence, in some cases physical, seemed
to assure this fact. They then felt free to assume the series and deduce
the formulas for the coefficients. This issue of whether any function can be
represented by a trigonometric series became central.
6. Conti,nued Fradions
We have already noted (Chap. 13, sec. 2) the use of continued fractions to
obtain approximations to irrational numbers. Euler took up this subject'
In his first paper on it,33 entitled "De Fractionibus Continuis," he derived
a number of interesting results, such as that every rational number can be
expressed as a finite continued fraction. He then gave the expansions
llllllll
e - | : t * i* fo fu IT 4+frTT6T...,
32. Nora Aata Acad. Sci. Pctrop., ll, f793, ll4-32, pub. 1798 = Olctq (l), 16, Part l,
333-55.
33. Comm. Acad. Sci. P.fio!.,9, 1737,9U137, pub' 1744 = OIna, (l), 14, 187-215'
46o TNrlr.trTE sERrEs
which had already appeared in a paper by Cotes in the Phihsolhfual Trans-

adionsof 1714, and
c+l o, I I I
;=1-'..fimTT4T""
He showed substantially that e and a2 are irrational.
The foundations of a theory of continued fractions were laid by Euler
in his Introduttio (Chap. l8). There he showed how to go from a series to a
continued fraction representation of the series, and conversely.
Euler's work on continued fractions was used by Johann Heinrich
Lambert (1728-77), a colleague of Euler and Lagrange at the Berlin
Academy of Sciences, to provesa that if r is a rational number (not 0), then
c' arrd tan r cannot be rational. He thereby proved not only that a, for
positive integral * is irrational, but that all rational numbers have irrational
natural (base a) Iogarithms. From the result on tan *, it follows, since
tan(rl4) : l, that neither zr/4 nor zr can be rational. Lambert actually
proved the convergence of the continued fraction expansion for tan x.
Lagrangess used continued fractions to find approximations to the
irrational roots of equations, and, in another paper in the same journal,s6
he got approximate solutions of differential equations in the form of con-
tinued fractions. In the 1768 paper, Lagrange proved the converse of a
theorem that Euler had proved in his I 744 paper. The converse states that
a real root of a quadratic equation is a periodic continued fraction.
7. The Problem d Conaergence and Diaergence

We are aware today that the eighteenth-century work on series was largely
formal, and that the question of convergence and divergence was certainly
not taken too seriously; neither, however, was it entirely ignored.
Newton,s? Leibniz, Euler, and even Lagrange regarded series as an
extension of the algebra of polynomials and hardly realized that they were
introducing new problems by extending sums to an infinite number of
terms. Consequently, they were not quite prepared to face the problems that
infinite series thrust upon them; but the apparent difficulties that did
arise caused them at least occasionally to bring up these questions. What is
especially interesting is that the correct resolution of the paradoxes and
other difficulties was often voiced and just as often ignored,
Even some seventeenth-century men had observed the distinction
between convergence and divergence. In 1668 Lord Brouncker, treating
34. Hist. de l'Acad. de Berlin, 1761,265-322, pub. 1768 = Olera,2, 112-59.
35. Noua. Mim. de l'Acad. de Berlin, 23, 1767, 3 t l-52, pub. 1769 : (Euures, 2, 539-78,
and 24, 1768, I I l-80, pub. 1770 : (Euvres,2, 581-652.
36. 1776 - CEuares,4, 301-34.
37. See the quotation from Newton in Chap. 17, scc. 3.
THE rRoBLEM oF coNvERcENcE AND DTvERcENcE 46t
the relation between logx and the area under y : l/1, demonstrated the
convergence of the series for log 2 and log 5/4 by comparison with a geo-
metric series. Newton andJames Gregory, who made much use of numerical
values of series to calculate logarithmic and other function tables and to
evaluate integrals, were aware that the sums of series can be finite or infinite.
The terms " convergent " and " divergent " were actually used by James
Gregory in 1668, but he did not develop the ideas. Newton recognized the
,r""J to consider convergence but did no more than affirm that power series
converge for small values of the variable at least as well as the geometric
series. He also remarked that some series can be infinite for some values of
x and so be useless, as, for example, the series fot g : \/-4x- *' at tc : a'
Leibniz, too, felt some concern about convergence and noted in a
letter of Octob er 25, 1713, to John Bernoulli what is now a theorem, that a
series whose terms alternate in sign and decrease in absolute value mono-
tonically to zero converges.ss
Maclaurin, irt his Treatise of Fluxiotts ( I 742), used series as a regular
method for integration. He says, " When a fluent cannot be represented
accurately in algebraic terms, it is then to be expressed by a converging
series." That the terms of a convergent series must continually decrease
and become less than any quantity howsoever small that can be assigned he
also recognized.
..In that case a few terms at the beginning of the series will
be nearly equal to the value of the whole." In the Treatisc Maclaurin gave
the integral test (independently discovered by cauchy) for the convergence
of an ininite seriert ), {(n) converges ifand only if J.- {(x) is finite, provided
that {(r) is finite and of the same sign for a < x < o. Maclaurin gave it in
geometrical form.
Some ideas about convergence were also expressed by Nicholas
Bernoulli (1687-1759) in letters to Leibniz of l7l2 and 1713. In a letter of
April 7, l7l3,8s Bernoulli says the series
(l + })" : t + n* **+ x2 +"'
has no sum when r is negative and numerically Sreater than I ifz is frac-
tional and has an even denominator, That is, the (arithmetical) divergence of
a series is not the only reason for a series not to have a sum' Thus for * > I
both series
(l - x)-rra: t *+. + # *'+#*3 +"'
(t - x;-rrz : , *L- +#4*' +!#4.6.rs + "'
38, Math, Schriften, 3, 922-23. Leibrriz also gave an incorrect proof in a letter to John
of
January 10, l7l4: Math. Schiftcn,3,926.
39. Leibniz: Math. Schrifien' 3, 98G-84.
462 rNFrNrrE sERrEs
are divergent, but the fust series has a possible value and the second an
imaginary value. One cannot distinguish the two by examining the series
because the rcmaindzrs are missing. Ilowever, Nicholas did not set up a clear
concept of convergence. In a reply ofJune 28, I 713, Leibniz ao uses the term
" advergent " for series that converge (roughly in our sense) and agrees that
non-advergent series may be impossible or infinitely large.
There is no doubt that Euler saw some of the difficulties with divergent
series, and in particular the difficulty in using therri for computations, but
he certainly was unclear about the concepts of convergence and divergence.
He did recognize that the terms must become infinitely small for con-
vergence. The letters described below tell us, indirectly, something of his
views.
Nicholas Bernoulli (1687-1759), in correspondence with Euler during
174243, had challenged some of Euler's ideas and work. He pointed out
tlrat Euler's use in his paper of 1734135 (see sec. 4) of
.J3s5
srnr:r_fi+Sl + :(,-#)(,-#x,-#)
does yield
tt2 .lll
t +p+
6 U+ *--z*...,
but a proof of the convergence of the basic series in s is missing. In a letter
of April 6, 1743,4t he says he cannot imagine that Euler can believe a
divergent series gives the exact value of some quantity or function. He points
out that the remainder is lacking. Thus l/(1 - x) cannot equal I 1x 1
i + . . . because the remainder, namely, .16 +1/(l - x), is missing.
In another letter of I 743, Bernoulli says Euler must distinguish between
a 6nite sum and a sum of an infinite number of terms. There is no last term
in the latter case. Hence one cannot use for infinite polynomials (as Euler
did) the relation between the roots and coefficients of a polynomial of finite
degree. For polynomials with an infinite number of terms one cannot speak
of the sum of the roots.
Euler's answers to these letters of Bernoulli are not known. In writing
to Goldbach on August 7,1745,42 Euler refers to Bernoulli's argument that
divergent series such as
+l - 2 + 6 - 24 + 120 - 72O -...
have no sum but says that these series have a definite aaluz. He notes that
we should not use the term "sum" because this refers to actual addition.
He then states the general principle which explains what he means by a
40. Math, Schriftzn, 3,986.
41. Fuss: Cotcslondance, 2, 701 tr.
42, Fuss: Corrcspondarcc, l, 324,
THE IRoBLEM oF coNvERcENcE AND DTvERGENcE +65
definite value. He points out that the divergent series come from finite
algebraic exp.essions and then says that the value of the series is the wluc oJ
ttu algebrait expressi.on ftom uhich tlv series comes. ln the paper of 1754155
(sec. +;, he adds, " Whenever an infinite series is obtained as the development
of sorne closed expression, it may be used in mathematical operations as the
equivalent of thai expression, even for values of the variable lor which the
series diverges." He repeats the first principle in his Institutiones of !755:
Let us say, therefore, that the sum of any infinite series is the finite
expression, by the expansion of which the scries is generated' In this sense
- *
thi sum of the infinite series I x xz -*3 +"' will be l/(l
+ x)'
because the series arises from the expansion ofthe fraction, whatever number
is put in place of x. If this is agreed, the new definition of the word sum
coLcides with the ordinary meaning when a series converges; and since
divergent series have no sum in the Proper sense of the word, no incon'
veniencecanarisefromthisterminology.Finally,bymeansofthisdefinition,
weczrnpreservetheutilityofdivergentseriesanddefendtheirusefromall
objections.ao
It is fairly certain that Euler meant to limit the doctrine to power series.
In writing to Nicholas Bernoulli in 1743, Euler did say that he had had
grave doubts as to the use of divergent series but that he had never been led
into error by using his definition of sum.{4 To this Bernoulli replied that the
same series might arise from the expansion of two different functions and, if
(in- the
so, the sum would not be unique.a6 Euler then wrote to Gotdbach.
,,
leiter of Augus t I , l74b) : Bernoulli gives no examples and I do not believe
it possible that the same series could come from two truly different algebraic
e*|ressions. Hence it follows unquestionably that any series, divergent or
convergent, has a definite sum or value."
There is an intereting sequel to this argument' Euler rested on his
contention that the sum of series such as
(58) I - 1+ 1- I + 1...
could be the value of the function from which the series comes. Thus the
above series comes from l/(l + r) when * : 1, and so has the value l/2'
However, Jean-Charles (Frangois) Callet ( 17't't-99), in an unpublished
me*o""rrdrr- submitted to Lagrange (Lagrange approved it for publication
in the Mhnoires of the Academy of Sciences of Paris but it was never pub-
Iished), pointed out some forty years Iater that
l+r+...+*'r l-{
\JJ/ T;.VT::.+-"-t:T-*"
: I - { * xo - *o+a * tc?o -,.,.
+3. Paragraphs 108-l l.
44. Opra Posthuma, l, 536.
45. April 6, 1743; Fnssz Cortcslondaruc, 2,701 tr.
464 rNFrNrrE sERrEs
Hence for 3 : I * < ,), since the left side is mln, the sum of the right
(and
side must also be mln, where z and n are at our disposal.
Lagrange ao considered Callet's objection and argued that it was
incorrect. He -used Leibniz's probability argument thus: Suppose rrr : 3
and z : 5. Then thefll series on the right side of (59) is
I +0+0-xs +0+*6 +0+0-ro +0 + rro 10-....
Now if one takes for x : l, the sum of the first term, the first two, the first
three,. , ., then in each five of these partial sums three are equal to I and
two are equal to 0. Hence the most probable value (mean value) is 3/5;
and this is the value of the series in (59) for m : 3 and z : 5. Incidentally,
Poisson, without mentioning Lagrange, repeats Lagrange's argument.a?
Euler did say that great care should be exercised in the summation of
divergent series. He also made a distinction between divergent series and
semiconvergent series, such as (58), that oscillate in value as more and more
terms are added but do not become infinite. Certainly he recognized the
distinction between convergent series and divergent ones. fn one case
(1747), where he used infinite series to calculate the attraction that the
earth, as an oblate spheroid, exerts on a particle at the pole, he says the
series " converges vehemently."
Lagrange, too, showed some awareness of the distinction between con-
vergence and divergence. In his earlier writings he was indeed lax on this
matter. one paperas he says that a series will represent a number if it
fn
converges to its extremity, that is, ifits zth term approaches 0. Later, toward
the end of the eighteenth century, when he worked with Taylor's series, he
gave what we call Taylor's tJreorem,{s namely,
J@ + h):J@) +f,(x)h +1,@)#.*. +.f(*>(x)#.* *,

where
Ro:f<n+D(x + 0h)
#.
and 0 is between 0 and I in value. This expression for rRo is still known as
Lagrange's form of the remainder. Lagrange said that the Taylor (infinite)
4$. Mlm. de l'Acad. des Sci., Inst, Frarce,3, 1796,l-ll,pub. 1799; this article does not
appear in the (Euotes.
47. Jour. de PEcole Poly., 12, 1A23, 404-509. If one insists on using the full lorzer series,
then Lagrange's argument makes more sense, It can be rigorized by applying Erobenius's
definition of summability (Chap. 47, sec.4).
48. Hisl. de l'Acad, de Berlin,24, l77O = (Euares,3,5-73, p.6l in particular.
49. Thlorb des fonctions,2nd ed., 1813, Chap. 6 : CEuares, 9, 69-a5. The mean value
theorem of the differential calculus, .f(b) -f(r) = f'(6)(b - c), is due to Lagrange
(1797). Later it was used to derive Taylor's theorem as in modern books,
THE PROBLBM OF CONVERGENCE AND DTVERGENCE 465
series should not be used without consideration of the remainder. However,

he did not investigate the idea of convergence or the relation of the value of
the remainder to the convergence of the infinite series. He thought that one
need consider only a finite number of terms of the series, enough to make the
remainder small. Convergence was considered later by Cauchy, who stressed
Taylor,s theorem as primary, as well as the fact that to obtain a convergent
series the remainder must approach 0.
D'Alembert, too, distinguished convergent from divergent series' In
his article "S6rie" in the Encgclolidie he says, "When the progression or
series approaches some finite quantity more and more, and, consequently'
the termi of the series, or quantities of which it is composed, go on diminish-
ing, one calls it a convergent series, and if one continues to infinity, it will
firr-ully b""o-" equal to this quantity. Thus l/2 a lla + l/B + l/16 + "'
form a series which always approaches I and which will become equal to it
finally when the series is continued to infinity." In 1768 d',Alembert expressed
doubis about the use of nonconvergent series' He said, "As for me, I avow
that all the reasonings based on series that are not convergent ' ' ' apPear to
me very suspect, e\rer, *hen the results are in accord with truths arrived at
in other ways."u' In view of the effective uses of series by John Berno 'lli
and Euler, ihe doubts such as d'Alembert expressed went unheeded in the
eighteenth century. In this same volume d'Alembert gave a test for t}te
absolute convergence of the series u1 * u2 * lg * " ' ; namely, if for all z
greater than some fixed value r, the ratio lun*rlunl < p where p is inde-
f,endent ofz and less than l, the series converges
absolutely'61
Edward Waring (1734-98), Lucasian professor of mathematics at
Cambridge Universiiy, held advanced views on convergence' He taught that
t+f+l*l*...
tztut3n'4n'
converges when z > I and diverges when z < l' He also gave (1776) the
well-known test for convergence and divergence, now known as the ratio
test and attributed to Cauchy. The ratio of the (z + l)st to the zth term is
formed, and if the limit as z -> o is less than l, the series converges; if
greater than l, the series diverges. No conclusion may be drawn when the
limit is l.
ThoughLacroixsaidseveralnonsensicalthingsaboutseriesin-the
1797 edition of his influenti al TraitC du calcul difdrentiel et du calcul intigral,
he was more cautious in his second edition. Speaking of
x*2xB
I+-+--*-*"',
aa'd-
50. Oprscules mathimatiques,5, 1768, 183.

51. Pages 171-82.
466 TNFTrrrTE sERrEs
he says tlrat one should speak of the series as a deaelopment of tle function
because tJre series does not always have the aafue of the function to which it
belongs.62 The series, he says, gives the value of the function only for
lrl < lrl. He continues with a thought already expressed by Euler, that
the infinite series is nevertheless tied in with the function for all *. In any
analytical work involving the series we would be right to conclude that we
are dealing with the function. Thus if we discover some property of the series,
we may be sure this property holds for the function. To perceive the truth
of this assertion, it is sufficient to observe that the series verifies the equation
that characterizes the function. For example, for y : 4@ - *) we have
a-(a-x)y:O.
But if one substitutes the series for y in this last equation, he will see that the
series also satisfies it. One knows, Lacroix continues, that it would be the
same for any other example; and he points to the great number presented
in the te:<t.
It is fair to say that in the eighteenth-century work on infinite series the
formal view dominated. On the whole, the mathematicians even resented
any limitations, such as the need to think about convergence. Their work
produced useful results, and they were satisfied with this pragmatic sanction.
They did exceed the bounds of what they could justi$r, but they were at
least prudent in their use of divergent series, As we shall see, the insistence on
restricting the use of series to convergent ones won out during most of the
nineteenth century. But the eighteenth-century men were ultimately
vindicated; two vital ideas that they glimpsed in infinite series were later to
gain acceptance. The first was that divergent series can be useful for
numerical approximations of functions I the second, that a series may
represent a function in analytical operations, even though the series is
divergent.
Bibliographg
Bernoulli, James t Ars Conjcctandi, 1713, reprinted by Culture et Civilisation, 1968.
Opera, 2 vob., 1744, reprinted by Birkhaiiser, 1968.
Bernoulli, John: Opera Omnia, 4 vols., 1742, reprinted by Georg Olms, 1968.
Burkhardt,
-: H.: " Trigonometrische Reihen und Integrale bis etwa 1850," Ercgk.
fur math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner, 19l.l-15, 2, Part l, pp. 825-1354.
" Entwicklungen nach oscillirenden Functionen," Jahrcs. der Deut. Math.-
Vercin., Yol. 10, 1908, pp. l-1804.
"Uber den Gebrauch divergenter Reihen in der Zeit 175O-1860," Math.
Ann., 70, 191I, 189-206.
52. l8l0-19, 3 vols.; Vol. l, p.4.

BrBrrocRAPrrY +61
Cantor, Moritz : Vorhsungcn ilber Geschichtz br Matlumalik, B' G' Teubner, 1898,
Vol. 3, Chaps. 85,86, 97, 109, 110.
Dehn, M., and E. D. Hellinger: " Certain Mathematical Achievements of James
Gregory," Amcr. Math. Monthlg,50, 1943' 149-63'
Euler, Leonhard: Op*a Omnia, (l), Vols. 10, 14, and 16 (2 parts), B' G' Teubner
and Orell Fiissli, 1913, 1924, 1933, and 1935'
Fuss, Paul Heinrich von'z Cotespondarce matWmatiqw dz quclquzs cillbres
't Plrysiqut
Reprint Corp', 1967'
gionltrcs du XVIIDru silclc,2 vols., 1843, Johnson
Hofmain, Joseph E' : "Uber Jakob Bernoullis Beitregg zur Infinitesimal-
mathematik," L'Eueigrcmcnt Mathimatiqu, (2), 2, 1956, 6l-17l; also
published separately by Irstitut de Mathdmatiques, Gen0ve, 1957'
Montucla, l. F.: Histoirc dcs mathimatiques, A. Blanchard (reprint), 1960, Vol' 3,
pp.20H3.
neiffn.A.:Geschichtederuuallitlunfuilun,H.LauppscheBuchhandlung,lSS9;
Martin Siindig (rePrint), 1969.
Schneider, Ivo: "Der Mathematiker Abraham de Moivre (1667-1754)," Archiac
for Histuy of Exut Scitnces, S, 1968, 177-gl7 '

Smith, David Eugene: A Sowcc Book in Matlumalics, Dover (reprint), 1959, VoI' 1,
pp. 85-90, 95-98.
St rrit,-O. J,t A Sourcc Book in Matlumatbs, 1200-1800, Harvard University Press,
I 969, pp. I I l-l 5, 3 16-24, 328-33, 33841, 369-7 4'
Turnbull, H. W,: Jotrut Grcgory Tctccntenary Memoial Volumc, Royal Society of
Edinburgh, 1939.
T'lu Con spondewe of Issac Newlon, Canbridge IJniversity Press, 1959, Vol' l'
-2
2t
Ordinary Differential Equations
in the Eighteenth Century
A traveler who refuses to pass over a bridge until he has
personally tested the soundness of every part of it is not likely
to go far; something must be risked, even in mathematics.
HORACE LAIrlB
l. Motiaati.ons
The mathematicians sought to use the calculus to solve more and more
physical problems and soon found themselves obliged to handle a new class
of problems. They wrought more than they had consciously sought. The
simpler problems led to quadratures that could be evaluated in terms of the
elementary functions. Somewhat more difficult ones led to quadratures
which could not be so expressed, as was the case for elliptic integrals (Chap.
19, sec. 4). Both of these types fall within the purview of the calculus.
However, solution of the still more complicated problems demanded
specialized techniques; thus the subject of differential equations arose.
Several classes of physical problems motivated the investigations in
differential equations. Problems in the area now generally known as the
theory of elasticity were one class. A body is elastic if it deforms under the
action of a force and recovers its original shape when the fiorce is removed.
The most practical problems are concerned with the shapes assumed by
beams, vertical and horizontal, when loads are applied. These problems,
treated empirically by the builders of the great medieval cathedrals, were
approached mathematically in the seventeenth century by men such as
Galileo, Edme Mariotte (1620?-84), Robert Hooke (1635-1703), and
Wren. The behavior of beams is one of the two sciences Galileo treats in
the Dialogucs Concerning Tuo New Scienccs. Hooke's investigation of springs
led to his discovery of the law that states that the restoring force of a spring
that is stretched or contracted is proportional to the stretch or contraction.
The men of the eighteenth century, armed with more mathematics, began
their work in elasticity by tackling such problems as the shape assumed by
an inelastic but flexible rope suspended from two fixed points, the shape of
468
MOTrvATroNs 469
an inelastic but flexible cord or chain suspended from one fixed point and
set into vibration, the shape assumed by an elastic vibrating sEing held
fixed at its ends, the shape of a rod when fixed at its ends and subject to a
Ioad, and the shape when the rod is set into vibration.
The pendulum continued to interest the mathematicians. The exact
differential equation for the circular pendulum, d20ldt2 + ng sin d : 0,
defied treatment, and even the apProximate one obtained by replacing
sin 0 by d had yet to be treated analytically. Moreover, the period of a
circular pendulum is not strictly independent of the amplitude of the motion,
and the search was undertaken for a curve along which the bob ofa pendulum
must swing for the period to be strictly independent of the amplitude.
Huygens had solved this geometrically by introducing the cycloid; but the
analytical solution was yet to be fashioned.
The pendulum was closely connected with two other major investiga-
tions of the eighteenth century, the shape of the earth and the verification
of the inverse square law of gravitational attraction. The approximate
period of a pendulum, T - 2rlTii, was used to measure the force of
gravity at various points on the surface of the earth because the period
depends on the acceleration g determined by that force. By measuring
successive lengths along a meridian, each length corresponding to a change
of one degree in latitude, one can, with the aid of some theory and the
values ofg, determine the shape ofthe earth, In fact by using the observed
variation in the period at various places on the earth's surface, Newton
deduced that the earth bulges at the equator.
After Newton had, by his theoretical argument, concluded rhat the
equatorial radius was l/230 longer than the polar radius (this value is 30
percent too Iarge), the European scientists were eager to confirm it. One
method would be to measure the length of a degree of latitude near the
equator and near a pole. If the earth were flattened, one degree of latitude
would be slightly longer at the poles than at the equator.
Jacques Cassini (1677-1756) and members of his family made such
measurements and in I 720 gave an opposite result. They found that the
pole-to-pole diameter was I /95 longer than the equatorial diameter. To
settle the question the French Academy of Sciences sent out two expeditions
in the 1730s, one to Lapland under the mathematician Pierre L. M. de
Maupertuis and the other to Peru. Maupertuis's party included a fellow
mathematician Alexis-Claude Clairaut. Their measurements confirmed that
the earth was flattened at the poles; Voltaire hailed Maupertuis as the
" flattener of the poles and the Cassinis." Actually Maupertuis's value was
I / t 78, which was less accurate than Newton's. The question of the shape
of the earth remained a major subject and for a long time it was oPen as
to whether the shape was an oblate spheroid, a prolate spheroid, a general
ellipsoid, or some other figure of revolution.
The related problem, veri$ing the law of gravitation, could be handled
47O oRDINARY DTFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS rTOO-rBOO
if the shape of the earth were known. Given the shape, one could determine
the centripetal force needed to keep an object on or near the surface of the
rotating earth. Then, knowing t}le acceleration g due to the force ofgravity
at the surface, one could test whether the full force of gravity, which supplies
the centripetal acceleration and g, is indeed the inverse square law. Clairaut,
one of the men who questioned the law, believed at one time that it should
be of the form F : Alrz + Blra. The two problems of the law of attraction
and the shape of the earth are further intertwined, because when the earth
is treated as a rotating fluid in equilibrium, the conditions for equilibrium
involve the attraction of the particles of the fluid on each other.
The physical field of interest that dominated the century was astronomy.
Newton had solved what is called the tv/o-body problem, that is, the motion
of a single planet under the gravitational attraction of the sun, wherein
each body is idealized to have a point mass. He had also made some steps
toward treating the major three-body problem, the behavior of the moon
under the attraction of the earth and sun (Chap. 17, sec. 3). However, this
was just the beginning of the efforts to study the motions of the planets and
their satellites under the gravitational attraction of the sun and the mutual
attraction of all the other bodies. Even Newton's work in the Priluipia,
though constituting in effect the solution of differential equations, had to
be translated into analytical form, which was done gradually during the
eighteenth century. It was begun, incidentally, by Pierre Varignon, a fine
French mathematician and physicist, who sought to free dynamics from the
encumbrance of geometry. Newton did solve some differential equations
in analytical form, for example in his Method of Fluxions of 167l (Chap. 17,
sec. 3); and in his Tradatus of 1676, he observed that the solution of
drgld* : f(*) is arbitrary to the extent of an (n - I)st degree polynomial
in r. In the third edition of the Prircipia, Proposition 34, Scholium, he
confines himself to a statement of which shapes of sudaces of revolution
offer least resistance to motion in a fluid; but in a letter to David Gregory
of 1694 he explains how he got his results and in the explanation uses
differential equations.
Among problems of astronomy, the motion of the moon received the
greatest attention, because the common method of determining longitude
of ships at sea (Chap. 16, sec. 4), as well as other methods recommended in
the seventeenth century, depended on knowing at all times the direction
of the moon from a standard position (which from late in the century was
Greenwich, England). It was necessary to know this direction of the moon
to within 15 seconds of angle to determine the time at Greenwich to within
I minute; even such an error could lead to an error of 30 kilometers in the
determination of a ship's position. But with the tables of the moon's position
available in Newton's time such accuracy was far from attainable. Another
reason for the interest in the theory of the motion of the moon is that it
FIRST ORDER ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL EqUATIONS 471
could be used to Predict eclipses, which in turn were a check on the entire
astronomical theory.
The subject of ordinary differential equations arose in the problems
just sketched. As mathematics developed, the subject of partial differential
-equations
led to further work in ordinary differential equations' So did the
branches now known as differential geometry and the calculus of variations.
In this chapter we shall consider the problems leading directly to the basic
early work in ordinary differential equations, that is, equations involving
derivatives with respect to only one independent variable'
2. First Order Ordinarg Dffirential Equations

The earliest work in differential equations, like the late seventeenth- and
early eighteenth-century work in the calculus, was first disclosed in letters
from oni mathematician to another, many of which are no longer available'
or in publications that often repeated results established or claimed in
letters, The announcement of a result by one man frequently provoked the
claim by another that he had done precisely the same thing earlier, which'
in view of the bitter rivalries that existed, might or might not have been
true. Some proofs were merely sketched, and it is not clear that the authors
had the complete story; likewise, purported general methods of solution
were merely illustrated by particular examples' For these reasons, wen if
we ignore ihe entire question of rigor, it is difficult to credit the results
obtained to the right man.
In the Acta Eruditorum of 1693 1 Huygens speals explicitly of difierential
3
equations, and Leibniz in another article in the same journal and year says
dfuerential equations are functions of pieces of the characteristic triangle.
The point we usuatly learn first about ordinary differential equations' that
they can arise by eliminating the arbitrary constants from a given function
.rd it derivatives, *"* ,roi made until about I 740 and is due to Alexis
Fontaine des Bertins.
to use the calculus in solving
James Bernoulli was among the earliest
analltically problems of ordinary difierential equations' In May of 16903
fr" prrttitn"Alis solution of the problem of the isochrone, though an analytic
solution had already been given by Leibniz' This problem is to find a curve
along which a pendulum takes the same time to make a complete oscillation
*h"iile, it swings through a wide or small arc' The diflerential equation'
in Bernoulli's symbols, was
ds{W- : dr\G-
l. (Euvres, l0' 512-14.
2. Marh. Schnfun, 5,306.
3. Acta Erud.,1690, 217-19 = Olcra, 1,421-24'
472 oRDINARY DIFFERENTIAL EqUATTONS r 7OO-rBOO
Figure 2l.l
Bernoulli concluded from the equality of the differentials that the integrals
(the word is used for the first time) must be equal and gave
Yt*3! \/Fr=a : *G
as the solution. The curve is, of course, the cycloid.
fn the same paper of 1690 James Bernoulli posed the problem of
finding the curve assumed by a flexible inextensible cord hung freely from
two fixed points, the curve Leibniz called the catenary. The problem had
been considered as far back as the fifteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci.
Galileo thought the curve was a parabola, Iluygens affirmed that this was
not correct and showed, largely by physical reasoning, that if the total
load of cord and any weights suspended from it is uniform per horizontal
foot, the curve is a parabola. For the true catenary the weight per foot alcng
tlu cable is uniform.
ln the Acta for June of 1691, Leibniz, Huygens, and John Bernoulli
published independent solutions. Huygens's was geometrical and unclear.
John Bernoulli a gave a solution by the method of the calculus. The full
explanation is in his calculus text of 1691. It is the one now given in calculus
and mechanics texts and is based on the equation
dy
(r) :s_
dtc c
where s is arc length from B to some arbitrary point I (Fig. 2l.l) and c
depends upon the weight per unit length of the cord. This differential
equation Ieads to what we now write asy : c cosh (x/r). Leibniz too obtained
this result by calculus methods.
John Bernoulli was immensely proud that he had been able to solve
the catenary problem and that his brother James, who had proposed it,
4, Acta Erud., 1691,274-76 = Oiera, l, 118-51.

FIRST ORDER ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS 473
had not. In a letter of September 29, l7l8,, to Pierre R6mond de Montmort

(1678-1719) he boasts,6
The eflorts of my brother were without successl for my part, I was
more fortunate, for I found the skill (I say it without boasting, why
should I conceal the truth?) to solve it in full and to reduce it to the
rectification of the parabola. It is true that it cost me study that robbed
me of rest for an entire night. It was much for those days and for the
slight age and practice I then had, but the next morning, filled with
joy, I ran to my brother, who was still struggling miserably with this
Gordian knot without getting anywhere, always thinking like Galileo
that the catenary was a parabola' Stop! Stop! I say to him, don't torture
yourself any more to try to prove the identity of the catenary with the
parabola, since it is entirely false. The parabola indeed serves in the
construction of the catenary, but the two curves are so different that one
is algebraic, the other is transcendental. . . . But then you astonish me
by concluding that my brother found a method of solving this problem'
. . . I ask you, do you really think, if my brother had solved the problem
in question, he would have been so obliging to me as not to appear
among the solvers, just so as to cede me the glory of appearing alone on
the stage in the quality of the first solver, along with Messrs' Huygens
and Leibniz ?
During the years l69l and 1692 James andJohn also solved the problem
of the shapi assumed by a flo<ible inelastic hanging cord ofvariable density,
an elastic cord of constant thickness, and a cord acted on at each point by
a force directed to a fixed center. John also solved the converse problem:
Given the equation of the curve assumed by an inelastic hanging cord,
to find the law of variation of density of the cord with arc length' John's
solutions are the ones often found in mechanics texts. James published in
ttre Acta of 169l the proof that of all shapes that a given cord hung from
two fixed points can take, the catenary has the lowest center of gravity'
ln thi Acta of 169l James Bernoulli derived the equation for the tractrix,
the curve (Fig. 21.2) for which the ratio of PT to O?d is constant for any
point P on the curve' James first derived
Q:t_.
dca
where s is arc length. From this equation he deduced that
lrf
(2)
lr*:.lds\/a'-s'
and
(3) )n'*:-i{@'-Y')',
5. Johann Berno ulli, Der Briefwechscl oon Johann Bcmozl/i, Birkhiiuser vcrlag, 1955, 97-98.
474 oRDTNARY DTFFERENTTAL BqUATTONS r 7OO-rBOO
Figure 2I.2
which he left as characteristic integrals for the curve. (Equation [2] can
be integrated to yield * + @=7 : alog[a + \f=T)til.)
Leibniz hit upon the technique of separating variables in ordinary
diflerential equations and communicated it in a letter to Huygens of 1691.
Thus he solved an equation of the form y(drcldil :-f(x)e@), by writing
d*lf@ : S@) dSlC, and then was able to integrate both sides, He did not
formuLate tlle general method. He also reduced (1691) the homogeneous
diflerential equations of first order, S' :"f@lx), to quadratures. He let
! : ox arl.d substituted in the equation. The equation is t}len separable.
Both these ideas, separation of variables and solution of homogeneous
equations, were explained more fully byJohn Bernoulli in the Acta Eruditorum
of 1694. Then Leibniz, in 1694, showed how to reduce the linear first order
ordinary diflerential equation !' + P(x)g: Q(*) to quadratures. His
method ut:lizsd a change in the dependent variable. In general, Leibniz
solved only first order ordinary diflerential equations.
James Bernoulli then proposed in the Acta of 16956 the problem of
solving what is now called Bernoulli's equation:
(4)
*:'or, + Q@)v".
Leibniz in 1696? showed it can be reduced to a linear equation (first degree

iny and. y') by the change ofvariable 2 : yr-n. John Bernoulli gave another
method. In the Acta of 1696 James solved it essentially by separation of
variables.
In 1694 Leibniz and John Bernoulli introduced the problem of finding
the curve or family of curves that cut a given family of curves at a given
angle. John Bernoulli called the cutting curves trajectories and pointed out,
on the basis of Huygens's work on light, that this problem is important in
finding the paths of rays oflight traveling in a non-uniform medium because
6. Page 553.
7. Acta had., 1696, 145.
IILT OAm. OnDlxARY DITPEREIIfIAL EgUATIONS 475
thcse rays cut what are called the wave fronts of light orthogonally. The
problem did not become public until r697, whenJohn posed it as a challenge
to James, who solved a few special cases. John obtained the differentill
equalion of the orthogonal trajectories of a particular family of curves and
solved it in 1698.8 Leibniz found the orthogonal trajectories of a family
of curves thus: Consider !2 : 2bx, where D is the parameter of the family
(a term he introduced). From this equation y dyldi : b. Leibniz then lets
b : -g dtcldg, substitutes in y2 : 2bx, and obtains y2 :
-2xy dxldy as the
diflerential equation of the trajectories. The solution is ai _'ri :
1212.
TholC! he solved just special cases, he conceived the general problerrrand
method.
The subject of orthogonal trajectories remained dormant until 1715,
when,Leibniz, aiming primarily at Newton, challenged the English mathe_
maticians to discover the general method of finding the orthojonal trajec-
tories of a given family of curves. Newton, tired from a day ut the ,rr-irt,
solved the problem before going to sreep and the solution was publishei
in t\e Phihsophical Transacti.ons of l7l6.e Newton also showed how to find
the curves cutting a given family at a constant angle or at an angle varying
with each curve of the given family according to a given law. The *"ihod
is not too different from the modern one, though N.*to., used ordinary
differential equations of the second order.
Further work on this problem was done by Nicholas Bernoulli (1695_
1726), in 1716. Jacob Hermann (1678-1733), a student ofJames Bernoulli,
gave in the Acta of 1717 the rule that if F(x,y,r) : 0 is thi given family of
curves, then y' :
-F,lFu, where F., and F, are the partial derivatives oid
and the orthogonal trajectory has FulF, as its slope.ro Hence, Hermann
said, the ordinary differential equation of the orthogonal trajectories of
F(x,y,c) : Qis
(5) F, dx : F*dg.
He solved (5) for c, substituted this value in the original equation F(*, y, c) :
0, and solved the resulting differential equation. This method is really
Leibniz's, but more explicitly stated. It is more customary today to find the
true differential equation satisfied by F : a; this equation does not contain
parameter c. In it we replace S' by I lg, and so obtain the differential
equation of the orthogonal trajectories.
-
John Bernoulli posed other trajectory problems for the English, his
particular b6te noire being Newton. since the English and the continentals
were already at odds, the challenges were marked by bitterness and hostility.
8. Opera, l, 266.
9. Phil. Trans., 29, l7 16, 399-.100.
lO. Acta Erad., 1717,349 ff. Also in John Bernoulli, Opera,2,275-79.
476 oRDTNARY DTFFERENTTAL EeuATroNs r Too-r8oo
John Bernoulli then solved the problem of finding the motion of a

projectile in a medium whose resistance is proportional to any power of the
velocity. The differential equation here is
(6) *fl - *o" : *s.
Exact first order equations, that is, equations M(*,y) dx + N(x,y).

dy : 0, for which M dx * N dy is an exact differential of some function
z : -f(x,g), were also recognized. Clairaut, who is famous for his work on
the shape of the earth, had given the condition AMIAy : 0Nl0x that the
equation be exact in his papers of 1739 an.d l74O (Chap. 19, sec. 6). The
condition was also given independently by Euler in a paper written in
l73tl--35.11 If the equation is exact then, as Clairaut and Euler pointed out,
it can be integrated.
When a first order equation is not exact it is often possible to multiply
the equation by a quantity, called an integrating factor, that makes it
o<act. Though integrating factors had been used in special problems of
first order ordinary differential equations, it was Euler who realized (in
the 1734135 paper) that this concept furnishes a method; he set up classes
of equations in which integrating factors will work. He also proved that if
two integrating factors of any first order ordinary differential equations
are known then their ratio is a solution of the equation. Clairaut independ-
ently introduced the idea ofan integrating factor in his 1739 paper and
in the I 7,10 paper added to the theory. All the elementary methods of
solving first order equations were known by 1740.
3. Singular Solutions
Singular solutions are not obtainable from the general solution by giving a
definite value to the constant of integration; that is, they are not particular
solutions. This was observed by Brook Taylor in his Methodus Incrementorumr2
while solving a particular first order second degree equation. Leibniz in
1694 had already noted that an envelope of a family of solutions is also a
solution. Singular solutions were more fully explored by Clairaut and Euler.
Clairaut's work of 173413 dealt with the equation that now bears his
narne,
(7) !: xy' +"f@,).
Let y' be denoted by y'. Then
(B) s: 'c!
+lQ).
ll. Comm. Acad. Sci. Pebo!'7, 1734135, 174-93, pub. 17,10 : Otera, (l), 22, 36-56.
t2. 1715, p.26.
13. Hist, de l'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1734, 196-215.
SINGULAR SOLTITIONS 477
By differentiating with resPect to x Clairaut obtained
?:? + {x + f'(P)}&*.
Then
(e)
fr= o and x +f'(p) :0.
The equation dpldx : 0 leads to g' : c,and then from the original equation
we have
(10) y:cx+lk).
This is the general solution and is a family of straight lines. The second
factot, x + .f'(P) :0, may be used together with the original equation to
eliminate 1; this yields a new solution, which is the singular solution. To see
that it is the envelope of the general solution we take (10) and diflerentiate
with respect to c. Then
(l l) x*-f'(c):o.
The envelope is the curve that results from eliminating c between (10) and
(t l). But these two are exactly the same as the two equations that yield the
singular solution. The fact that the singular solution is an envelope was not
yet appreciated, but Clairaut was explicit that the singular solution was not
included in the general solution.
Clairaut and Euler had given a method of finding the singular solution
by working from the differential equation itseli that is, by eliminating y'
fri:om J@,y,g'): 0 and aflay' :0' This fact and the {irct that singular
solutions are not contained in the general solution puzzled Euler' In his
Institutiones of 17681a he gave a criterion for distinguishing the singular
solution from a particular integral, which could be used when the general
solution was not known. D'Alembert 15 sharpened this criterion. Then
Laplace ls extended the notion of singular solutions (he called them partic-
ular integrals) to equations of higher order and to differential equations in
three variables.
Lagrange 17 made a systematic study of singular solutions and their
connection with the general solution' He gave the general method of obtain-
ing the singular solution from the general solution by elimination of the con-
stant in a clear and elegant way that surpasses Laplace's contribution' Given
the general solution V(x,y, a) : 0, Lagrange's method was to filed dglda,
14. Vol. l, pp. 393 tr
15. Hitt, de l'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1769,85 ff., pub. 1772.
16. Hisl'. dc I'Acad. ths Sei., Paris, 1772, Pafi l, 344 tr., pub. 1775 = CEtNr.s 8, 32ffi'
17. Nouo. Mlm. tte I'Acad. de Bulin, 1774, pttb. 1776 = (Ewres' 4, 5-108.
478 oRDINARY DTEFERENTIAL EQUATIONS r TOO-r BOO
set equal to 0, and eliminate cr from this equation and, V : 0. The same
it
Procedure can be used with dzlda: 0. He also gave further information
on Clairaut's and Euler's method of obtaining the singular solution from
the differential equation. Finally, Lagrange gave the geometrical interpreta-
tion of the singular solution as the envelope of the family of integral curves.
There are a number of special difficulties in the theory of singular solutions
which he did not recognize. For example, he did not realize that other
singular curves, which may appear in the equation obtained by eliminating
y' from f(x,g,y') : 0 and afl as' :0 are not singular solutions, or that a
singular solution may contain a branch that is a particular solution. The
full theory of singular solutions was developed in the nineteenth century
and given its present form by Cayley and Darboux in 1872.
4. Second Order Equations end tlu Riccati Equations

Second order ordinary differential equations arose in physical problems as
early as 1691. James Bernoulli tackled the problem of the shape of a sail
under the pressure of the wind, the aelaria problem, and was led to a second
order equation dzxldsz : (dy/dr)s where s is arc length. John Bernoulli
treated this problem in his calculus text of 169l and established that it is
the same mathematically as the catenary problem. Second order equations
appear no(t in the attack on the problem of determining the shape of a
vibrating elastic string fixed at both ends-for example, the violin suing.
In tact tilg this problem Taylor was pursuing an old theme. The whole
subject of mathematics and musical sounds, begun by the Pythagoreans,
was continued by men of the medieval period and brought to the fore in
the seventeenth century. Benedetti, Beeckman, Mersenne, Descartes,
Huygens, and Galileo are prominent in this work, though no new mathe-
matical results are worth noting here. The fact that a string can vibrate in
many modes, that is, halves, thirds, etc., and that the tone produced by a
string vibrating in ,t parts is the tth harmonic or (,t - I)st overtone (the
fundamental is the fust harmonic) was well known in England by 1700,
largely through the experimental work ofJoseph Sauveur (1653-1716).
Brook Taylor 18 derived the fundamental frequency of a stretched
vibrating string. He solved the equation d2i : tyli, where i equals
and the differentiation is with respect to time, and gave ! : A sin ^/Fl@
(xla) a.s
the form of the string at any time. Here a : lfz, where I is the length of
the string. Taylor's result for the fundamental frequency (in modern nota-
tion) is
tfr
":'t^l ;'
18, Phil. Trau,,28, 1713,26-32, pub. l7l4; also in Phil. Trazr. Abridgctl,6, 1809, 7-12,
t4-t7 .
sEcoND oRDER AND RICCATI EqUATTONS 479
where 7 is the tension in the string, o : mlg, m is the mass Per unit length,
and g is the acceleration of gravity.
In his effort to treat the vibrating string, John Bernoulli, in a letter of
1727 to his son Daniel and in a paper,le considered the weightless elastic
string loaded with z equal and equally spaced masses' He derived the
fundamental frequency of the system when there ate 1,2,. '.,6 masses.
(There are other frequencies of oscillation of the system of masses') John
recognized that the force on each mass is -r( times its displacement, and
solved dzxldtz : - Kx, thus integrating the equation of simple harmonic
motion by analytic methods. He then passed to the continuous string which,
like Taylor, he proved must have the shape of a sine curve (at any instant)
and calculated the fundamental frequency. Here he soLved, dzyldxz : -ky'
Neither Taylor nor John Bernoulli treated the higher modes of elastic
vibrating bodies.
ln I72B Euler began to consider second order equations. His interest
in these was aroused partly by his work in mechanics. He had worked, for
example, on pendulum motion in resisting media, which leads to a second
order differential equation. For the king ofPrussia he worked on the effect of
the resistance of air on projectiles. Here he took over the work ofthe English-
man Benjamin Robins, improved it, and wrote a German vemion (1745).
This was translated into French and English and used by the artillery.
He also considered 20 a class of second order equations that he reduced
to first order by a change of variables. For example, he considered the
equation
(12) af dxc : y" dgo-'d'y
or in derivative form
ldg\o-z 72, a*ttl
(13)
\e) -d*: s"'
Euler introduced the new variables I and z by means of the equations
(14) y : e"t(a), *:edo
wherein a is a constant to be determined. The equations (I4) may be
regarded as parametric equations for x and y in terms of a, so that one can
now calculate ilgldx and dzyldxz and by substitution in (13) obtain a second
order equation in I as a function a. Euler then fixes s so as to eliminate the
exponential factor, and a no longer apPears explicitly. A further transforma-
tion, namely, z : daldt, reduces the second order equation to first order'
The details of this method are not worth pursuing because they apply
to just one class ofsecond order equations, but historically this piece of work
19. Comm. Acad. Sci. PertoP.,3, 1728, 13-28, pub. 1732 = Olera,3' 198-210'
20. Comm. Acad. Sci. Parop.,3, 1727,124-37, pub' 1732 = Oleta, (l),22, l-14'
480 oRDTNARY DIFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS r 7OO-rBOO
Figure 21.3
is significant because it does initiate the systematic study of second order

equations and because Euler here introduces the exponential function,
which, as we shall see, plays an important role in solving second and higher
order equations.
Before leaving St. Petersburg in 1733, Daniel Bernoulli completed a
paper, "Theorems on Oscillations of Bodies Connected by a Flexible
Thread and of a Vertically Suspended Chain."e1 He starts with the hanging
chain suspended from the upper end, weightless but loaded with equally
spaced weights. He finds, when the chain is set into vibration, that the
system has different modes of (small) oscillation about a vertical line through
the point of suspension. Each of these modes has its own characteristic
frequency.'z Then, for an oscillating, uniformly heavy hanging chain of
length l, he gives that the displacement y at a distance r from the bottom
(Fig. 21.3) satisfies the equation
(ls)
"!*e*) +y:0,
and the solution is an infinite series, which (in modern notation) can be
expressed as
(16) y : Aro\liii),
where.Io is the zero-th order Bessel function (of the first kind).za Moreover,
c is such that
(t7) Joe\/-qd) : o,
21. Pctrop.,6, 1732133, 108_22, pub. 1738.

Comm. Acqd. Sci.
22. ln the case of z masses each mass has its own motion, which is a sum of a sinusoidal
terms, each having one of the characteristic frequencies. The entire system has z different
principal modes, each with one of the characteristic frequencies. Which of tb$e are
prcsent depcnds on the initial conditions-
23. r,(x) : (4" z positive integral or 0.

;
"r*t!!#ror
sEcoND ORDER AND RICCATI EQUATIONS 48r
where / is the length of the chain. He asserts that (17) has infinitely many
roots, which become smaller and smaller and approach 0, and he gives the
largest value for c. For each c there is a mode of oscillation and a charac-
teristic frequency.
IIe now says, " Nor would it be difficult to derive from this theory a
theory of musical strings agreeing with those given by Taylor and by my
father . . . Experiment shows that in musical strings there are intersections
[nodes] similar to those for vibrating chains." Actually, Bernoulli here
goes beyond Taylor and his father in recognizing the higher modes or
harmonics of a vibrating string.
His paper on the hanging chain also treats the oscillating chain of
non-uniform thickness; here he introduces the differential equation
(lB)
"*(^r!) *,ff : o,
where g(.r) is the distribution of the weight along the chain. For g(x) : x2ll2
he gives a series solution that can be expressed in modern notation as
(le) s : 2A(U)-'' " r,12t/ u 1

o1
with
Jt?\/-2qd) : o.
J, is the Bessel function of first order and first kind.

What is missing in Daniel Bernoulli's solutions is, first, any reference
to the displacement as a function of the time, so that his work remains
mathematically in the realm of ordinary differential equations; and second,
any suggestion that the simple modes (the harmonics), which he explicitly
recognizes as real motions, may be superposed to form more complicated
ones.
After having entered upon the subject of musical sounds with a book,
Tmtamen Nooae Theoriae Musie u ex certissimis Harmoniac Principiis Diluridt
Expositae (An Investigation into a New, Clearly Presented Theory of Music
Based on Incontestable Principles of Harmony), written by l73l and pub-
lished in 1739,2e Euler followed up Daniel Bernoulli's work in a paPer'
" On the Oscillations of a Flexible Thread Loaded with Arbitrarily Many
Weights." 25 Euler's results are much the same as Bernoulli's, excePt that
Euler's mathematics is clearer. For one form of the continuous chain, that
is, the special case in which the weight is proportional to rn, Euler has to
solve
x dfo,d!,!_n
;71-di 'r A'r - -
w'
24. OPera, (3), I' 197-427.

25. Comm. Acatl. Pebop.,8, 1736,3H7, pub.
Soi. l74l : Opera, (2), l0' 3F49'
4Bz oRDTNARv DrrrernttttAr, EeuATroNs rToo-r8oo
He derives the series solution, which in modern notation is26
y: +rl)*.
Aq-*trln(2{-q), o: -("
The z here is general so that Euler is introducing Bessel functions of arbitrary
real index. He also gives the integral solution
Io'(t - t2)<2't-r)t2."rn(zrJ@) a,
!:A
This is perhaps the earliest case of a solution of a second order differential
equation expressed as an integral.
In a paper of 173927 Euler took up the difierential equations of the
harmonic oscillator * * kx : 0 and the forced oscillation of the harmonic
oecillator
(20) Mii + Kx : Fsin arct.
He obtained the solutions by quadratures and discovered (really rediscovered,

since others had found it earlier) the phenomenon of resonance; that is,
if ar is tlre natural frequency {TiM of the oscillator, which obtains when
F' : 0, then when c,.r,/c.r approaches I the forced oscillations have larger and
larger amplitudes and become infinite.
In an attempt to set up a model for the transmission of sound in air,
Euler considers in his paper "On the Propagation of Pulses Through an
E.laqtic Medium " ea z masses M connected by like (weightless) springs and
lying in a horizontal line PQ. The motion considered is longitudinal, that
is, along PQ. For the *th mass he obtains
Miip: K(xy*1 - 2xy * xp-1), k: I,2,...,n
where K is the spring constant and r* is the displacement of the *th mass.
He obtains the correct characteristic frequencies for each mass and the
general solution
(21) -:: t,,in ffi ",, (2\/-Kp,rf+?f),

26. For gcneral v (including complex values)
r,(, : > -J:ry::,----

The I,(z) are called modified Bessel functions.
27. Comm. Acad. Sci. Pctto!., ll, 1739, 12U49, pub. 1750 = Olua, (2), 10, 78-97.
28. Noai Comm. Acad. Sci. Pebop.,l, 1747148,67-105, pub. l75O: O?cra, (2)' 10,98-131.
sEcoND oRDER AND RTCCATI EQUATTONS 483
wherein k : 1,2,.. ., z. Thus he not only obtains the individual modes

for each mass but the general motion of that mass as a sum of simPle har-
monic modes. The particular modes that may appear depend on the initial
conditions, that is, on how the masses are set into motion. All these results
are interpretable in terms of the transverse motion (perpendicular to PQ)
of the loaded string.
Some of the equations already treated, for example, the Bernoulli
equation, are nonlinearl that is, as an equation in the variables g, g', and
g" (if present), terms of the second or higher degree occur' Among such
equations of first order, a few are of special interest because they are intim-
ately involved with linear second order equations. In the early history of
ordinary differential equations the nonlinear Riccati equation
(22)
H: ,"r*l * a1@)v * a2(x)vz
commanded a great deal of attention.

The Riccati equation acquired importance when it was introduced by
Jacopo Francesco, Count Riccati of Venice (1676-1754), who worked in
acoustics, to help solve second order ordinary differential equations. He
considered curves whose radii of curyature depend only on the ordinates
and was led 2e to
dzx dzu
xnVVa:6,+ ldu\z
\ie)
(Riccati wrote .ra dtx : dzg + (dil') wherein we must understand tlat x
'
and y depend upon y'. By changes of variables Riccati obtained
dr dtc*t,
-^4:* l1
which is of first order. He assumed next that g is a power of r, for example,

xn, and arrived at the form
du ,t2 : nAfi+n-t'
(23)
dx'xn
-r-
He then showed how to solve (23) for special values of z by the method of
separation of variables for ordinary differential equations. Later, several
of the Bernoullis determined other values of z for which solution of (23) by
separation of variables was possible.
Riccati's work is significant not only because he treated second order
diflerential equations but because he had the idea of reducing second order
equations to first order. This idea of reducing the order of an ordinary
29. Acta Erwl., 1724,66-73.

484 oRDTNARY DTITER.ENTTAL EquATroNs I Too-r8oo
differential equation by one device or another will be seen to be a major
method in the treatment of higher order ordinary differential equations.
Euler in 176030 considered the Riccati equation
dz-,2 :A*
(24)
d.a
and showed that ifone knows a particular integral z, then the transformation
z:a+u-r
produces a linear equation. Moreover, if one knows two particular integrals,
one can reduce the problem of solving the original differential equation to
quadratures.
D'Alembertsl was the first to consider the general form (22) of the
" for this form. He
Riccati equation and to use the term " Riccati equation
started with
(25)
dzs: - AzxzrzS
7F -ZaLc
and let
(26) .e : exp [l o *], p :.f(x),
from which he obtained the form (22) for an equation in p as a function of x.
5. Highn Order Equati.ons

In December of 1734 Daniel Bernoulli wrote to Euler, who was in St.
Petersburg, that he had solved the problem of the transverse displacement y
of an elastic bar (a steel or wooden one-dimensional body) fixed at one end
in a wall and free at the other. Bernoulli obtained the differential equation
(27) *' *9r: n,

where .I( is a constant, x is the distance from the free end of the bar, and y
is the vertical displacement at that point from the unbent position of the
bar. Euler, in a reply written before June 1735, said he too had discovered
this equation and was unable to integrate it except by using series, and
that he did obtain four separate series, These series represented circular and
exponential functions, but Euler did not realize it at this time.
30. Novi Comm. Acad, Sci. Petrop.,8, 1760/61, 3-63, pub. 1763 : OPta, (l),22, ?34-94,
and 9, 1762163, 15,[-69, pub. 1764 = O?era, (l'),22, 403-20.
31. Hist. de l'Acarl. de Berlin, 19, 1763, 242 tr., pub. 1770.
HrGrrER ORDER EqUATTONS 485
Four years later, in a letter to John Bernoulli (September 15, 1739),

Euler indicated that his solution can be represented as
(28) , : r[("*I" + ""'nf) - i ('*ff, +'r"n])]

where D is determined by the condition thaty : 0 when x : /so that
. I .. t
_^^srn -- + srnh -*
o: --T--TT'
-( cos
-( + cosh
The problems of elasticity led Euler to consider the mathematical

problem of solving general linear equations with constant coefficients; and
in the letter of September 15, 1739, he wrote John Bernoulli that he had
succeeded. Bernoulli wrote back that he had already considered such
equations in I700, even with variable coefficients. Actually he had considered
only a special third order equation and had shown how to reduce it to one
of second order.
In his publication of this work 82 Euler considers the equation
(2s) o : Ay + a4* +
"#,
* ,# *...* , *,ry,,
where the coefficients are constants. The equation is called homogeneous
because the term independent of y and its derivatives is 0. He points out
that the general solution must contain n arbitrary constants and that the
solution will be a sum of z particular solutions, each multiplied by an arbi-
trary constant. Then he makes the substitution
y:",.pU,4,
r constant, and obtains the equation in r,
A+Br+Crz+"'!Lr":0,
which is called the characteristic or indicial or auxiliary equation' When 4
is a simple real root of this equation, then
,.*olloo4
is a solution of the original differential equation. When the characteristic
equation has a multiple root q, Euler lets y : eq"u(x) and substitutes in the
differential equation. He finds that
(30) ! : ea, (a * px + yxz +...* r*k-r;
32. Misc. Beroli.n., 7, 1743, 19T242 : O|cra, (l),22' 10849.
486 oRDTNARv DTrFT,RENTTAL EeuATroNs r Too-r8oo
is a solution involving & arbitrary constants if the root q appears ft times

in the characteristic equation. He also treats the cases of conjugate complex
roots and multiple complex roots. Thus Euler disposes completely of the
homogeneous linear equation with constant coemcients.
Somewhat 1ater38 he treated the nonhomogeneous zth-order linear
ordinary diflerential equation. His method was to multiply the differential
by {* dx, integrate both sides, and proceed to determine o so as to reduce
the equation to one of lower order. Thus to treat
(31) ,&**afl+U:x(x),
he multiplies through by eux dx and obtains
IV*# + c".B* * *-orf dx : I e,*x dz.

But for proper A' , B' , and. a the left side must be
*.(''' *
''#')
By differentiating this quantity and comparing with the original equation
he finds that
(32) B':C, l':B-aC, A':4,a

whence, from the second two equations,
(33) A-Ba*Ca2:O.
Thus a, A', and B'are found and the original equation is reduced to
(34) A's + B'* : ."' I e'*X dx.

An integrating factor for this equation is e0' dx where B : A' lB', so that
from (32) he has crp : AIC arrd d + p : BIC and. therefore, by (33),
a and p are the two roots of z4 - Ba * Caz : O.
The method applies to linear zth-order ordinary differential equations
with constant coefficients. The order is reduced step by step as in the above
example. Euler also took care of the cases of equal roots of the equation in c
and of complex roots.
Following the work on linear ordinary differential equations with
constant coefficients, Lagrange took the step to non-constant coefficients,sa
33. Nooi Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,3, 1750151,3-35, pub. 1753 = Olaa, (l),22, l8l-213.
34. Misc. Taur., 3, 1762165, 179-86 = Gwreq l, 471-78.
HTGHER ORDER EqUATTONS 487
This led, as we shall see, to the concePt of the adjoint equation. Lagrange
starts with
(35) ts + MUa,+ N|:!dt,+...: T
where "L, M, N, and 7 are functions of ,. For simplicity we shall stick to

second order equations. Lagrange multiplies by zdt wherc z(r) is as yet
undetermined, and integrates by parts, thus:
I **' dt : Mzy - J {*a1 *

I **'*: Nzy' - (N")'s +
! {x4'u at.
Then the original difierential equation becomes
ylMz - (Nz)'l + y'(Nz) + rt. - (Mz)' + (N")\y a :! r"at.

J
The bracket under the integral sign may be reated as an ordinary differen-
tial equation in z and set equal to 0. Ifit can be solved for z(t), there remains
an ordinary differential equation for y of lower order than the original.
The new differential equation in z is called the adjoint of the original equa-
tion, a term introduced by Lazatws Fuchs in 1873. Lagrange used no special
term for it.
To treat the equation for z (the adjoint equation), Lagrange proceeds
in the same way to reduce the order. He multiplies by ro(t) dt, proceeds as
above, and arrives at an equation in ra that will reduce the order of the
equation in z. The equation in zo turns out to be the original equation (35)
except that the right side is 0. Hence Lagrange discovered the theorem that
the adjoint ofthe adjoint ofthe original nonhomogeneous ordinary differen-
tial equation is the original but homogeneous equation. Euler did essentially
the same thing in 1778. He had seen Lagrange's work but aPParently forgot
about it.
In further work on homogeneous linear ordinary differential equations
with variable coeffi.cients, Lagrange 86 extended to these equations some of
the results Euler had obtained for linear ordinary differential equations
with constant coefficients. Lagrange found that the general solution of the
homogeneous equation is a sum of independent particular solutions, each
multiplied by an arbitrary constant, and that knowing rz particular integrals
of the zth-order homogeneous equation, one can reduce the order by nz.
35. Misc, Taur.,3, 1762165, l9O-99 = @uarcs, 1,481-90.

488 oRDTNARY DTFTERENTIAL EqUATIONS I TOO-I BOO
6. The Method of Series

We have already had occasion to note that some differential equations were
solved by means of infinite series. The importance of this method even
today warrants a few specific remarks on the subject. Series solutions have
been used so widely since 1700 that we must restrict ourselves to a few
examples.
We know that Newton used series to integrate somewhat complicated
functions even where only quadrature was involved. He also used them to
solve first order equations. Thus, to integrate
(36) 0:2+3x-2y+x2+x29,
Newton assumes
(37) !: Ao * A$ * Aaxz +....
Then
(38) !: At + 2A2x * 3A"x2 1" '
Substitution of (37) and (38) in (36) and equating coefficients of like powers
of x yields
Ar:2 - 2Ao, 2A2:3 - 2Ay 3A": 1 * Ao - 2Az + "'.
Thus we determine the 11 except for le. The fact that
is undetermined lo
and that therefore there is an infinite number of solutions was noted, but the
significance of an arbitrary constant was not fully appreciated until about
1750. Leibniz solved some elementary differential equations by the use of
infinite seriess6 and also used the above method of undetermined coemcients.
Euler put the method of series in the fore from about 1750 on, to solve
differential equations that could not be integrated in closed form. Though
he worked with specific differential equations, and the details of what he
did are often complicated, his method is what we use today. He assumes a
solution of the form
s:i(A+Bx+Cxz+"'),
substitutes for y and, its derivatives in the differential equation, and deter-
mines tr and the coefficients A, B, C,.. . from the condition that each power
of x in the resulting series must have a zero coefficient. Thus the ordinary
differential equation which arose from his work on the oscillating mem-
branesT (see Chap. 22, sec. 3), namely,
&0,, * l*,* (" - t) : o,

36. Acta Erud., 1693 : Math. Schiften, 5' 285-88.
37. Noai Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop., 10, 1764,243-60, pub. 1766 = Olera, (2)' l0' 34'l-59'
TrrE METrroD oF sERrEs 4Bg
now called the Bessel equation, Euler solved by an infinite series. He gives
the solution
: ra{r - rdrn (?)' .

us1
-@Thls (f)
which is, except for a factor depending only on p, what we now write as
Jp(r). In further work on these functions he showed that for values of B
that are odd halves of an integer, the series reduce to elementary functions.
He noted further that z(r), for real B, has an infinite number of zeros and
gave an integral representation for u(r). Finally, for p : 0 and p : I he
gave the second linearly independent series solution of the differential
equation.
Euler in the Institutiones Calculi Integralis 38 treated the hypergeometric
differential equation
(3e) x(t - x)#*r, - (a+ b + r).lud-- abs:s

and gave the series solution
, a.b a(a + l\b(b + l)
(40) !:t+fr*+_I:riGTT-x- "
rs +...
The above form of (39) and of the solution (40) he gave again in his main
paper on this subject, written in 1778.3e He had written other papers on
what he called the hypergeometric series, but there. the term referred to
another series originally introduced by Watlis. The term " hypergeometric,"
to describe the diflerential equation (39) and the series (40), is due to
Johbnn Friedrich Pfatr (1765-1S25), Gauss's friend and teacher. The series
(40) for y is now denoted by F(a, b, c; z). In this notation Euler gave the
famous relations
(41)
38. Vol. 2, 1769, Chaps. S-ll.

39. Nooa Acta Acad. Sci. Petrop., 12, 1794,5&-70, pub. l80l : O?era, (l), 16r' 4l-55'
490 oRDTNARY DTFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS r 7OO-rBOO
7. Systens oJ Difermtial Equations

The differential equations involved thus far in the study of elasticity were
rather simple, because the mathematicians were using crude physical
principles and were still struggling to grasp better ones. In the area of
astronomy, however, the physical principles, chiefly Newton's laws of
motion and the law of gravitation, were clear and the mathematical problems
far deeper. The basic mathematical problem in studying the motion of
two or more bodies, each moving under the gravitational attraction of the
others, is that of solving a system of ordinary differential equations, though
the problem often reduces to solving a single equation.
Beyond isolated occurrences, the work on systems dealt primarily with
problems of astronomy, The basis for writing the differential equations is
Newton's second law of motion, yf : ma, where f is the force of attraction.
This is a vector law, which means that each component ofyl produces an
acceleration in the direction of the component. Eu1er in a paper of l750ao
gave the analytical form of Newton's second law as
- dzx ^ dzu ^ mffi.

d2z
(42) J,.: m
fr-z, Ju: m
-Uzt J":
Here he assumes fixed rectangular axes. He also points out that for point
bodics, that is, bodies that can be treated as though their masses were
concentrated at one point, z is the total mass, and for distributed masses
mis dM.
We shall consider briefly the formulation of the differential equations.
Let us suppose that a fixed body of mass M is at the origin and that a
moving body of mass m is at (x,y, z). Then the components of the gravita-
tional force in the axial directions (Fig. 21.4) are
GMmx , : GMmg jz: GMmz
" ---j=,
Jx: Jt ---7-, " -1i-t
where G is tlre gravitational constant and r : \/@ +7 + 7). One can
readily show that the moving body stays in one plane so that the system of
equations (42) reduces to
dzx _ _k. d'g : _kg
(43)
dtz ra' ilz /3
with rt : GM.In polar coordinates these equations become
dzr ld^z
a -'\a) : -p
k
(4+)
d20 ^ dr d0
'ffi + 'zta: u'
40. Hitt. dc I'Acod. de Barlin, 6, 1750, 185-217, pub. 1752 = Opcra, (2), 5, 8l-108.
49t
(r,1, <)
Figure 21.4
In this case ofone body moving under the attracting force of another (fixed)
body, the two diflerential equations can be combined into one involving
x and g or r and 0 because, for example, the second polar equation can be
integrated to yield r2 dlldt : C and the value of d0lilt cat be substituted
in the first equation. It turns out t}rat the moving body describes a conic
section with the position of the first body as a focus.
If the two bodies move, each subject to the attraction of the other,
then the differential equations are slightly different. Let ra, and z2 be the
masses of two spherical bodies with spherically symmetric mass and with
m1 * m2 : M. Choose a fixed coordinate system (usually the center is takcn
at the center of mass ofthe two bodies) and let (xr,yr, zr) be the coordinates
of one body and (x2, y2, zs) the coordinates of the other; let r be the distance
. Then the system of equations
that describes their motion is
*,#+ : -km1m2@r -x'), *,#+ : -km1m2@3

*r# : -km{nzkt -zz), *,# : -kmtmz@i"f
: -kminzQ': z').
: -Y) , ^,#
^,#* -km1m2\s
This is a system of six second order equations whose solution calls for twelve
integrals, each with an arbitrary constant of integration. These are deter-
mined by the three coordinates of initial position and three components of
initial velocity of each body. The equations can be solved, and the solution
shows that each body moves in a conic section witJ-r respect to the common
center of mass of the two bodies.
Actually this problem of the motion of two spheres under the mutual
attractive force of gravitation was solved geometrically by Newton in the
492 ORDTNARY DTFTERENTTAL EqUATTONS rTOo-r8OO
Priruipia (Book I, Section I l). However, the analytical work was not taken
up for sonie time. In mechanics the French followed Descartes's system
until Voltaire, after visiting London in 1727 , returned to champion New-
ton's. Even Cambridge, Newton's-own university, continued to teach natural
philosophy from the text of Jacques Rohault (1620-75), a Cartesian. In
addition, the most eminent mathematicians of the late seventeenth century
Leibniz, and John Bernoulli-were opposed to the concept of
-Huygens,
gravitation and hence to its application. Analytical methods of treating
planetary motion were undertaken by Daniel Bernoulli, who received a prize
from the French Academy of Sciences for a paper of 1734 on the two-body
problem. It was handled completely by Euler in his book Theoria Motuum
P lawlamm ct Comctantm,at
If we have z bodies, each spherical and with spherically symmetric
mass distribution (density a function of radius), they will attract each other
as tlrough their masses were at their centers. Let mr, f,zs . . . t fln represent
the masses and (xe ys zr) the (variable) coordinates of the ith mass with
respect to a fixed system of axes; let 4, be the distance from m1 to mr. Then
the x-components of the forces acting orr lz1 ar€
k,.rl
- Ls
rmtm2(x, - *r), -i"mrms(x, - ,s),. . ., -* mtmo(xt - xn),
with similar expressions for the y- and z-components of the force. Each body
has such components of force acting on it.
The differential equations of the motion of the l'th body are then
mr(l2x,ldt2) - - kmrZ *,1(r, - xt)lr?i

I -L
IL
(45) nr(d2grldtz) - -km, Z*,[(r' - y)lr?i

t=r
n
mr(dz z,ldtz) : - kmt} - zt) lr?i

! -L
^,1(",
with j * i and i:1,2,...,2. There are 3rl equations, each of second
order. The origin can be chosen to be the center of mass of the z bodies or
it can be chosen in one of the bodies, for example, the sun. There are 6z
integrals, of which l0 can be found somewhat readily; these are the only
ones known in the general problem.
The problem of z bodies, indeed even of three bodies, cannot be solved
e:@ctly. Hence the investigations of this problem have taken two general
41. 1744 = Olera, (2), 28, 105-251.

SYSTEMS OF DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS 493
directions. The first is a search for whatever general theorems one can
deduce, which may at least shed some light on the motions' The second is
a search for approximate solutions that may be useful for a period of time
subsequent to-roln. instant at which data may be available; this is known
as the method of Perturbations.
The first type of investigation produced some theorems on the motion
of the center of mass of z bodies, which were given by Newton in his Principia.
For example, the center of mass of the z bodies moves with uniform speed
in a straight line. The ten integrals mentioned above, which are consequences
of what are called conservation laws of motion, also constitute theorems
of the first type. These integrals were known to Euler. There are also some
exact resrlts for special cases of the problem of three bodies, and these are
due to one of the masters of celestial mechanics, Joseph-Louis Lagrange'
Lagrange (1736-l8t3) was of French and Italian extraction' As a
boy he was inimpressed with mathematics, but while still at school he read
an essay by Halley on the merits of Newton's calculus and became excited
abor,t the subject.' At the age of nineteen he became a professor of mathe-
matics at the Royal Artillery School of Turin, the city of his birth. He soon
contributed so much to mathematics that even at an early age he was
recognized as one of the period's greatest mathematicians' Though Lagrange
*o.i'"d in many branches of mathematics-the theory of numbers, the
theory of algebraic equations, the calculus, differential equations and the
of variations-and in many branches of physics, his chief interest
"alcrirrs
was the application of the law of gravitation to planetary motion' He said'
in 1775,..The arithmetical researches are those which have cost me most
trouble and are perhaps the least valuable'" Archimedes was Lagrange's
idol.
Lagrange's most famous work, his Mhanique analytiqut (l7BB; second
edition, lBIl-15; posthumous edition, 1853), extended, formalized, and
crowned Newton's work on mechanics, Lagrange had once complained that
Newton was a most fortunate man, since there was but one universe and
Newton had already discovered its mathematical laws' However, Lagrange
had the honor ofmaking apparent to the world the perfection ofthe Newton-
ian theory. Though the MCeanique is a classic of science and is significant
also for the theory and use of ordinary differential equations, Lagrange
had trouble finding a Publisher'
The particular exact solutions obtained in the three'body problem
*e.. giren by Lagrange in a prize paper of 1772, Essai sur le problimc des
trois cirps.az One oi these solutions states that it is possible to set these bodies
i, motio., so that their orbits are similar ellipses all described in the same
time and with the center of mass of the three bodies as a common focus'
42. Hist. de l'Acad. tles Sci., Paris,9, 1772 : CEuttrcs, 6,229-331-

494 oRDTNARY DTFFERENTTAL EQUATTONS r TOO_r8OO
Another solution assumes the three bodies are started from the three summits
of an equilateral triangle. They will then move as though attached to the
triangle which itself rotates about the center of mass of the bodies. The third
solution assumes the three bodies are projected into motion from positions
on a straight line. For appropriate initial conditions they will continue to be
fixed on that line while the line rotates in a plane about the center of mass
of the bodies. These three cases had no physical reality for Lagrange, but
the equilateral triangle case was found in 1906 to apply to the sun, Jupiter,
and an asteroid named Achilles.
The second type of problem involving z bodies deals, as already noted,
with approximate solutions or the theory of perturbations. Two spherical
bodies acted upon by their mutual gravitational attraction move along
conic sections. This motion is said to be unperturbed. Any departure from
such motions, whether in position or velocity, however caused, is perturbed
motion. If there are two spheres but there is resistance from the medium
in which they move, or if the two bodies are no longer spherical but, say,
oblate spheroids, or if more than two bodies are involved, then the orbits
of the bodies are no longer conic sections. Before the use of telescopes the
perturbations were not striking. In the eighteenth century the calculation
of perturbations became a major mathematical problem, and Clairaut,
d'Alembert, Euler, Lagrange, and Laplace all made contributions. Laplace's
work in this area was the most outstanding.
Pierre-Simon de T aplace (1749-1827) was born to reasonably well-to-do
parents in the town of Beaumont, Normandy. It seemed likely that he would
become a priest but at the University of Caen, which he entered at the age
of sixteen, he took to mathematics. He spent five years at Caen and while
there wrote a paper on the calculus of finite differences. After finishing his
studies, Laplace went to Paris with letters of recommendation to d,Alembert,
who ignored him. Then Laplace wrote d,Alembert a letter containing an
exposition of the general principles of mechanics; this time d,Alembert
took notice, sent for Laplace, and got him the position of professor of
mathematics at the Ecole Militaire in Paris.
Even as a youth Laplace published prolifically. A statement made in
the Paris Academy of Sciences shortly after his election in l77B pointed
out that no one so young had presented so many papers on such diverse and
difficult subjects. In l7B3 he replaced Bezout as an examiner in artillery
and examined Napoleon. During the Revolution he was made a member
of the Commission on Weights and Measures but was later expelled, along
with Lavoisier and others, for not being a good republican. Laplace retired
to Melun, a small city near Paris, where he worked on his celebrated and
popralar Exposition du systime du monde (l7gi). After the Revolution he became
a professor at the Ecole Normale, where Lagrange by this time was also
teaching, and served on a number of government committees. Then he
sYsrEMs oF DIFFERENTTAL EqUATIONS 49s
became successively Minister of the Interior, a member of the Senate, and

chancellor of that body. Though honored by Napoleon with the title of
count, Laplace voted against him in lB14 and rallied to Louis XVIII, who
named Laplace marquis and peer of France.
During these years of political activity he continued to work in science.
Between t i99 and 1825 there appeared the five volumes of his Mhanique
cileste. ln this work Laplace presented " complete" analytic solutions of
the mechanical problems posed by the solar system. He took as little from
observational dat, as possible. The Micaniqw cileste embodies discoveries
and results of Newton, Clairaut, d'Alembert, Euler, Lagrange, and Laplace
himself. The masterpiece was so complete that his immediate successors
could add little. Perhaps its only defect is that Laplace frequently neglected
to acknowledge the sources of his results and left the impression that they
were aII his own.
Inl8l2hepublishedhisThiorieanalytiquedlsprobabilites.Theintroduc.
tion to the ,""orrd (l8l4) consists of a popular essay known as the
Essai philosophique
"ditiot
str les probabilitis. It contains the famous passage to the
effectihat th" frtrr." of the world is completely determined by the past and
that one possessed of the mathematical knowledge of the state of the world
at any given instant could predict the future.
Lallace made many important discoveries in mathematical physics,
some of which we shall take up in later chapters. Indeed, he was interested
in anything that helped to interPret nature. He worked on hydrodynamics,
the wave plopugutio., of sound, and the tides. In the field of chemistry, his
work on ti.e tiq"ia state of matter is classic. His studies of the tension in the
surface layer of water, which accounts for the rise of liquids inside a capillary
tube, ani of the cohesive forces in liquids, are fundamental' Laplace and
Lavoisier designed an ice calorimeter (1784) to measure heat and meiuiured
the specific heat of numerous substances I heat to them was still a special
tind if matter. Most of Laplace,s life was, however, devoted to celestial
mechanics. He died in 1827. His last words were reported to be, "What
we know is very slight; what we don't know is immense"-though De
Morgan states that they were "Man follows only phantoms"'
7uplu.. is often linked with Lagrange, but they are not similar in their
p".ror"i qualities or their work. Laplace's vanity kept him from giving
lufficient credit to the works of those whom he considered rivals; in fact,
he used many ideas of Lagrange without acknowledgment' When Laplace
is mentioned in connection with Lagrange it is always to commend the
personal qualities of the latter. Lagrange is the mathematician, very careful
in his writings, very clear, and very elegant' Laplace created a number of
new mathematical methods that were subsequently expanded into branches
of mathematics, but he never cared for mathematics except as it helped him
to study nature. When he encountered a mathematical problem in his
4gG oRDTNARY DTFFERENITrAL EquATroNs rToo_r8oo
physical research he solved it almost casually and merely stated, .,It is easy
to see that. . ." without bothering to show how he had worked out th;
result. He confessed, however, that it was not easy to reconstruct his own
work. Nathaniel Bowditch (I773-1838), the American mathematician and
astronomer, who translated four of the five volumes of the Mieanique eileste
and added explanations, said that whenever he came across th; phrase
"It is easy to see that . . ." he knew he had hours ofhard work ahead to fill
the gaps. Actually, Laplace was impatient of the mathematics and wanted
to get on with the applications. Pure mathematics did not interest him and
his contributions to it were by-products of his great work in natural philos-
ophy. Mathematics was a means, not an end, a tool one ought to perfect in
order to solve the problems of science.
Laplace's work, so far as it is relevant to the subject of this chapter,
deals with approximate solutions of problems of planetary motion. The
possibility of obtaining useful solutions by any approximate method rests
on the following factors. The solar system is dominated by the sun, which
contains 99.87 percent of the entire matter in the system. This means that
the orbits of the planets are nearly elliptical, because the perturbing forces
of the planets on each other are small, Nevertheless, Jupiter has 70 percent
of the planetary mass, Also, the earth,s moon is quite close to the eaith and
so each is affected by the other. Hence perturbations do have to be considered.
The three-body problem, especially sun, earth, and moon, was studied
most in the eighteenth century, partly because it is the next step after the
two-body problem and partly because an accurate knowledge ol the moon,s
motion was needed for navigation. In the case of the sun, earth, and moon,
some advantage can be taken of the fact that the sun is far from the other
two bodies and can be treated as exercising only a small influence on the
relative motion of the earth and moon. rn the case of the sun and two planets,
one planet is usually regarded as perturbing the motion of the other around
the sun. If one of the planets is small, its gravitational effect on the other
planet can be neglected, but the effect of the larger one on the small one
must be taken into account. These special cases of the three-body problem
are called the restricted three-body problem.
The theory of perturbations for the three-body problem was first
applied to the motion of the moonl this was done geometrically by Newton
in the third book of the Principia. Euler and Clairaut tried to obtain exact
solutions for the general three-body problem, complained about the diffi-
culties, and of course resorted to approximate methods. Here Clairaut made
the first real progress Q7a\ by using series solutions of the differential
equations. He then had occasion to apply his result to the motion of Halley,s
comet, which had been observed in 1531, 1607, and 1682. Ir was expected
to be at the perihelion of its path around the earth in 1759. Clairaut com-
puted the perturbations due to the attraction of Jupiter and Saturn and
SYSTEMS OF DIFFERENTIAL EqUATIONS 497
predicted in a paper read to the Paris Academy on November 14, 1758, that
ihe perihelion would occur on April 13, 1759' He remarked that the exact
time was uncertain to the extent of a month because the masses of Jupiter
and Saturn were not known precisely and because there were slight per-
turbations caused by other planets. The comet reached its perihelion on
March 13.
Tocomputeperturbationsthemethodcalledvariationoftheelements
or variation ol parameters--or variation of the constants of integration-
was created and is the most effective one' We are obliged to confine ourselves
to its mathematical principles; we shall therefore examine it without taking
into account the full physical background'
The mathematical method of variation of parameters for the problem
of three bodies goes back to Newton's Principia' After treating the motion
of the moon about the earth and obtaining the elliptical orbit, Newton
took account of the effects of the sun on the moon's orbit by considering
variations in the latter. The method was used in isolated instances to solve
nonhomogeneousequationsbyJohnBernoulliintheActaEruditorumof
I697 a3 an-cl by Eulerln I 739, in treating the second order equation y' * kzg
:
X (x). It was first used to treat perturbations of planetary motions by Euler
pup". of l74},aa which treated the mutual perturbations of Jupiter
ir'hi,
and Satuin and won a ptize from the French Academy' Laplace wrote
many papers on the method.as It was fully developed by Lagrange in two
papers.aB
Themethodofvariationofparametersforasingleordinarydifierential
equation was applied by Lagrange to the zth-order equation
PY + Q!' + Rg" + "'* Vg<"\ - X,
where X, P, Q, R,... are functions of x' For simplicity we shall suPPose

that we have a second order equation.
In the case X : O, Lagrange knew that the general solution is
(46) S:ap('t)+bq(x)
where a and b are integration constants and p and I are particular integrals
of the homogeneous equation. Now, says Lagrange, let us regard a and b
as functions of *. Then
(47) fl: u' + bq' + pa' + qb'.

43. Page I13.
44. Opera, (2),25, 45-157.
+S. S"", ioi Hist. de l'Acad. des Sci', Paris, 1772, Part 1, 651 ff'' pub' 1775
:
"*t*pt.,
(Ewtres,8,36l-66, and Hist. de l'Acad, des Sci', Pais, 1777,373 ff', pub' 1780 :
(Etptcs'
9,3s7-80.
46, Mhn. de I'Acad.
Nout,. de Berlin, 5, 1774,201ff', and 6, 1775' 190 ff' = (Euorcs' 4'
5-108 and l5l-251.

498 oRDTNARY DTFTERENTTAL EQUATTONS r 7OO-rBoo
Lagrange now sets
(48) !a' + qb' :0;

that is, the part ofy' that results from the variability ofa and 6 he sets equal
to 0. From (47) we have, in view of (48),
(4s) e*: *, * bq, * !,a, + q,b,.

If the equation were of higher order than the second, Lagrange would now
set p'a' + q'b' : O and find tl"yld*".Since, in our case, the equation is of
second order, he would keep all the terms in (49).
He now substitutes the expressions for y, dyldx arld d2yldxz given by
(46), (47), and (49) in the original equation. Since (46) is a solution of the
homogeneous equation and (48) throws out some of the terms that result
from the variability ofa and D, there remains after the substitution
(s0) p'o, + q,u :{*.

This equation and equation (48) give two algebraic equations in the two
unknown functions a' and, b' . These two simultaneous equations can be
solved for a' and, b' in terms of the known functions !, g, !,, q,, X, and R.
Then a and 6 can each be obtained by an integration or are at least reduced
to a quadrature. With these values of a and D, (46) gives a solution of the
original nonhomogeneous equation. This solution together with the solution
ofthe homogeneous equation is the complete solution ofthe nonhomogeneous
equation.
The method of variation of parameters was treated in more general
fashion by Lagrange a? and he showed its applicability to many problems of
physics. In the paper of lB08 he applied it to a system of three second order
equations. The technique is of course more complicated, but again the basic
idea is to treat the six constants of integration of the solution of the corre-
sponding homogeneous system as variables and to determine them so that
the expression will satisy the nonhomogeneous system.
During the period in which they were developing the method of varia-
tion of parameters and afterward, Lagrange and Laplace wrote a number
of key papers on basic problems of the solar system. In his crowning work,
the Micanique cileste, Laplace summarized the scope of their results:
We have given, in the first part of this work, the general principles ofthe
equilibrium and motion of bodies. The application of these principles
47. Mlrn. de l'Acad. d,es Sci., Inst. Frante, 1808,267 tr, : (Euares, 6, 713-68.
SITMMARY 499
to the motions of the heavenly bodies had conducted us, by geometrical

[analytical] reasoning, without any hypothesis,
to the law of universal
.ttiactioo, the action of gravity and the motion of projectiles being par-
ticular cases of this law. we have then taken into consideration a system
of bodies subjected to this great law of nature and have obtained' by
a singular analysis, the general cxpressions of their motions' of their
figures, and of the oscillations of the fluids which cover them' From these
."pr...io.rs we have deduced all the known phenomena of the flow and
ebb of the tide; the variations of the degrees and the force of gravity at
the surface of the earthl the precession of the equinoxes; the libration of
the moonl and the figure and rotation of Saturn's rings' We have also
pointed out the reason that these rings remain Permanently in the plane
of,h" of Saturn. Moreover, we have deduced' from the same
theory "qrr.,o,
oi gravity, the principal equations of the motions of the planets'
particular\ those ofJupiter and Saturn, whose great inequalities have a
period of above 900 Years.as
Lap|aceconcludedthatnatureorderedthecelestialmachine..foran
eternal duration, upon the same principles which prevail so admirably-
upon the earth, for ihe preservation of individuals and for the perpetuity of
the species."
is the mathematical methods for solving differential equations were
improved and as new physical facts about the Planets were acquired' efforts
we^re made throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to obtain
better results on th. ,r".ious subjects Laplace mentions, in particular on
the z-body problem and the stability of the solar system'
B. Summary
As we have seen, the attemPt to solve physical problems, which at first
involved no more than quadratures, Ied gradually to the realization that a
new branch of mathematics was being created, namely, ordinary differential
equations.Bythemiddleoftheeighteenthcenturythesubjectofdifferential
became an independent discipline and the solution of such equa-
"{r.tiorrs
tions an end in itself,
The nature ol what was regarded and sought as a solution gradually
changed. At first, mathematicians looked for solutions in terms of elementary
frnctiorrs ; soon they were content to exPress an answer as a quadrature that
might noi be effected. When the major attempts to find solutions in terms of
eleirentary functions and quadratures failed, mathematicians became
content to seek solutio.ns in infinite series'
The problem of sllution in closed form was not forgotten' but instead
of attempiing to solve in that manner the particular differential equations
48. Prefacc to Vol. 3.

5OO ORDTNARY DITFERENTTAL EqUATIONS rTOO-IBOO
that arose from physical problems, the mathematicians sought differential

equations that permit solutions in terms of a finite number of elementary
functions. A great number ofdifferential equations integrable in this manner
were found. D'Alembert (l 767) worked on this problem and included
elliptic integrals among acceptable answers. A typical approach to this
problem, made by Euler (1769), among others, was to start with a differen-
tial equation whose integration in closed form could be effected and then
derive other differential equations from the known one. Another approach
was to look for conditions under which the series solution might contain
only a finite number of terms.
An interesting but unfruitful piece of work by Marie-Jean-Antoine-
Nicolas Caritat de Condorcet (17 43-94) in Du calcul intdgral (1765) was his
attempt to bring order and method out of the many separate methods and
tricks used to solve differential equations, He listed such operations as
differentiation, elimination, and substitution and sought to reduce all
methods to these canonical operations. The work led nowhere. In line with
this plan Euler showed that where separation of variables is possible a
multiplying (integrating) factor will work, but not conversely. Also he showed
that separation ofvariables will not do for higher order differential equations.
As for substitutions, he found no general principles for obtaining them.as
Finding substitutions is as difficult as solving the differential equations
directly. However, transformation can reduce the order of a differential
equation. Euler used this idea to solve the zth-order nonhomogeneous linear
ordinary differential equation, and even in the case of the homogeneous
equation he thought of each exp { P a4 giving, for the proper value ofp,
"t equation. Reducing the order
a first order factor of the ordinary differential
was also Riccati's plan. A number of other methods, including Lagrange's
undetermined multipliers, were devised. At first this method was believed
to be general but it did not prove to be so.
The search for general methods of integrating ordinary differential
equations ended about 1775. Much new work was yet to be done with ordi-
nary differential equations, particularly those resulting from the solution
of partial differential equations. But no major new methods beyond those
already surveyed here were discovered for a hundred years or so, until
operator methods and the Laplace translorm were introduced at the end of
the nineteenth century. In flact interest in general methods of solution
receded, because methods of one form or another adequate to those types
required in applications were obtained. Broad, comprehensive principles
for the solution ol ordinary differential equations are still lacking. On the
whole the subject has continued to be a series of separate techniques for the
various types.
49. Inslilutiones Calculi Integralis, 1,290,

BIBLIOGRAPHY 5OI
Bibli.ograplry
Bernoulli, farnes: Opera,2 vols., 1744, reprinted by Birkhaiiser, 1968'
Bernoulli, John: Opera Omnia,4 vols., 1742, reprinted by Georg Olms, 1968'
Berry, Arthur: A Short History of Astronomg, Dover (reprint), 1961, Chaps' 9-11'
Cantor, Moritz : Vorlesungen iiber Geschichte der Mathematik, B. G. Teubner, 1898
atd 1924, Vol.3, Chaps. 100 and ll8, Vol. 4,Sec.27.
Delambre, J. B. J.: Histoire de l'astronomie moderne, 2 vols., 1821, Johnson Reprint
Corp., 1966.
Euler, Leonhard: Opera Omnia, Orell Fiissli, Series l, Vols. 22 and 23, 1936 and
1938; Series 2, Vols. 10 and ll, Part l, 1947 afi' 1957 '
Hofmann, J. E. : " Uber Jakob Bernoullis Beirage zur Infinitesimal-mathematik,"
L'Enseignement Mathimatique, (2),2,61-171. Published separately by Institut
de Mathdmatiques, Geneva, 1957.
Lagrange, Joseph-Louis : (Emres de Lagrange, Gauthier-Villars, I 868-l 873, relevant
papers in Vols' 2, 3, 4, and 6.
Micanique analglique, 1788; 4th ed., Gauthier-Villars, 1889' The fourth
edition is an unchanged reproduction of the third edition of 1853'
Lalande, J. de: Traiti d'aslronomie,3 vols., 1792, Johnson Reprint Corp'' 1964'
Laplace, Pierre-Simon: (Euates complites, Gauthier-Villars, 189l-1904, relevant
papers in Vols' 8, 11 and 13.
(Euorcs comPllles,
Traiti de micanique cileste, 5 vols., 1799-1825' Also in
Vols. l-5, Gauthier-Villars, 1878-82. English trans' of Vols. l-4 by
Nathaniel Bowditch, 1829-39, Chelsea (reprint), 1966'
Exposition du systime du monde, lst ed., 1796, 6th ed' in CEwres comPl2tcs ,
Gauthier-Villars, 1884, Vol. 6.
Montucla,J.F.:Hisloiredesmathimaliquts,lS02,AlbertBlanchard(reprint),
1960, Vol.3, 163-200; Vol.4, l-125.
Todhunter, of the Mathematical Theories oJ Attraction and the Figarc of
l.: A Hi.story
the Earth, 1873, Dover (reprint)' 1962.
Truesdell, Clifford E.: Introtluction to Leonhardi Euleri Opera Omnia, Vol' X ct XI
Seriei Secundae, in Euler, Opera Omnia, (2), ll, Part 2, Orell Fiissli, 1960'
22
Partial Differential Equations
Mathematical Analysis is as extensive as nature herself.
JOSEPH FOURIER
l. Introdwtion
As in the case of ordinary differential equations, the mathematicians did
not consciously create the subject of partial differential equations' They
continued to explore the same physical problems that had led to the former
subject; and as they secured a better grasp of the physical principles under-
lying the phenomena, they formulated mathematical statements that are
now comprised in partial differential equations. Thus, whereas the displace-
ment of a vibrating string had been studied separately as a function of time
and as a function of the distance of a point on the string from one end, the
study of the displacement as a function of both variables and the attempt to
comprehend all the possible motions led to a partial differential equation.
The natural continuation of this study, namely, the investigation of the
sounds created by the string as they propagate in air, introduced additional
partial differential equations. After studying these sounds the mathematicians
took up the sounds given offby horns ofall shapes, organ pipes, bells, drums,
and other instruments.
Air is one type offluid, as the term is used in physics, and happens to be
compressible. Liquids are (virtually) incompressible fluids. The laws of
motion of such fluids and, in particular, the waves that can propagate in
both became a broad field ofinvestigation that now constitutes the subject of
hydrodynamics. This field, too, gave rise to partial differential equations.
Throughout the eighteenth century, mathematicians continued to work
on the problem of the gravitational attraction exerted by bodies of various
shapes, notably the ellipsoid. While basically this is a problem of triple
integration, it was converted by Laplace into d problem of partial difieren-
tial equations in a manner we shall examine shortly.
502
TIIE WAVE EQUATION 5O3
2. Tlu Waoe Equation

Though specific partial differential equations appear as early as 1734 in the
*ork of Eulerl and in 1743 in d'Alembert's Traiti de dynamique, nothing
worth noting was done with them. The first real success with partial differ-
ential equations came in renewed attacks on the vibrating-string problem,
typified ty the violin string. The approximation that the vibrations are small
was imposed to make the partial differential equation tractable' Jean Le
Rond d'Alembert ( 1717-83), in his papers of 17462 entitled " Researches
on the Curve Formed by a Stretched String Set into Vibrations," says he pro-
poses to show that infinitely many curves other than the sine curve are modes
of vibration.
We may recall from the preceding chapter that in the first approaches
to the vibraiing string, it was regarded as a " string of beads'" That is, the
sring .or.ide"ed to contain 2 discrete equal and equally spaced weights
was
joined to each other by pieces of weightless, flexible, and elastic thread' To
ireat the continuous string, the number of weights was allowed to become
infinite while the size and mass of each was decreased, so that the total
mass of the increasing number of individual " beads " approached the mass
of the continuous string. There were mathematical difficulties in passing to
the limit, but these subtleties were ignored.
The case of a discrete number of masses had been treated by John
Bernoulli in 1727 (Chap. 21, sec. 4). Ifthe string is oflength I and lies along
0 < x < l, and if x*is the abscissa of the,tth mass, t : 1,2, " ', n (the nth
mass at x : I is motionless), then
**: kl' k:1,2r...rn.
By analyzing the force on the *th mass, Bernoulli had shown that ifyn is the
displacement of the ,tth mass, then
#: (,)' (y**r-2y**Y*-r), k : 1,2, ...,n - l,
whire a2 : tTlM, Tis the tension in the string (which is taken to be constant
as the string vibrates), and M the total mass. D'Alembert replaced y" by
g(t, x) and, llnby L.x. Then
qt# :.,fs\,r + M) - + YU,-' M)].

W
7. Comm. Acad. Sci. Petro!., 7, 173+135, 184-2OO' pub' 1740 =
Ogaa, (l), 22' 57-75'
2. H;st. de t'Acad. tle Beilh,3, 1747' 214-19 arrd 22V49, pub' 1749'
5O4 PARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS rTOO-rBOo
He now observed that as z becomes infinite so that A.* approaches 0, the

bracketed expression becomes A2gl0x2. Hence
029(t, x) _ 02y(t, x)
(r) --z;-- - u^r -dli-,
where a2 is now flo, o being the mass per unit length. Thus what is now
called the wave equation in one spatial dimension appears for the first time.
Since the string is fixed at the endpoints * : 0 and x : l, the solution
must satisfy the boundary conditions
(2) y(r, 0) : 0, g(t, l) : 0.
At , : 0 the string is displaced into

some shapey :3f(x) and then released,
which means that each particle starts with zero initial velocity. These initial
conditions are expressed mathematically as
ag\' x)l
(3) g(0, x) - rt/"\
\*) t --7i- lr=o -
o
and they must also be satisfied by the solution.

This problem was solved by d'Alembert in so clever a manner that it is
often reproduced in modern texts. \ y'e shall not take space for all the details.
He proved first that
(4) y(t, x) : f,a1<"

* xy + f,{,@t - x),
where / and ry' are as yet unknown functions.

Thus far d'Alembert had deduced that eaery solution of the partial
differential equation (l) is the sum ofa function of (at * *) and a function
of (at - r). The converse is easy to show by direct substitution of (4) into
(l). Of course d'Alembert had yet to satisfy the boundary and initial condi-
tions. The condition y(1,0) : 0 applied to (4) gives, for all l,
(5) loa,t * f,*<"t : o.
Since for arry ,c, ax ! t: at' for some value of tr', we may say that for any.r
and t
(6) g(x + at) : -g(x + at).
Then the condition y(i, l) : 0, becomes, in view of (4),

ll :
(7) i{@t + t) ){(at - r);
and since this is an identity in l, it shows that / must be periodic in at * x

with period 21.
TrrE wAvE EqUATTON 505
The condition
(B) x\l
-i-1,-,:
ail(L
u
yields, from (4) and the fact that 6 : -{t,

(e) f',@) :6',G*).
On integration this becomes
(10) $(x) : -$(-x),
and thus { is an odd function of r. If we now use the fact that { : - ry' in
(4), form y(0, *) and use (10), we have that
(ll) v(0, x) : $(x),
and since the initial condition is y(0, *) :.,ir(x) we have
(12) 4@):-f(*) for 0<x<1.

To sum up,
( l3) y(t,x):f,qA, * *1 -lr6Pt - *1,
where { is subject to the above conditions of periodicity and oddness'

Moreover, if the initial state isy(0, x) : f(x), then (12) must hold between
0 and /. Thus there would be just one solution for a given;f(r) ' Now d'Alem-
bert regarded functions as analytic expressions formed by the processes of
algebra-and the calculus. Hence if two such functions agree in one interval
oi*-v.lrres, they must agree for every value of *' Since {(x) : /(*) in
0 < x < J and { had to be odd and periodic, then;f(*) had to meet the same
conditions. Finally, since y(1, x) had to satisly the differential equation, it
had to be twice differentiable. But y(0, x) : J@), and so;f(r) had to be
twice diflerentiable.
Within a few months of seeing d'Alembert's 1746 papers, Euler wrote
his own paper, "On the Vibration of Strings," which was presented on May
16, l74B.s Though in method of solution he followed d'Alembert, Euler by
this time had a totally different idea as to what functions could be admrtted
as initial curves and therefore as solutions of partial differential equations.
Even before the debate on the vibrating-string problem, in fact in a work of
lTS4,heallowed functions formed from parts of different well'known curves
and even formed by drawing curves freehand' Thus the curve (fig' 22'l)
formed by ur, .r" of u parabola in the interval (a, c) and by an arc ofa third
degree cu.ve i, the interval (c, D) constituted one curve or one function
under
3. Nooa Acta Erud., 1749, 512'27 : Opera, (2), 10, 50-62; also in French by Euler'
Hist. de I'Acad. de Bcrlin,4, 1748,69-85 : Opera, (2), l0' 63-77 '
506 PARTIAL DTFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS r 7OO-r8OO
Figure 22.1
this concept. Euler called such curves discontinuous, though in modern

terminology they are continuous with discontinuous derivatives. In his text,
the Intro&utio of 1748, he stuck to the notion that was standard in the
eighteenth century, that a function must be given by a single analytical ex-
pression. However, the physics of the vibrating-string problem seems to
have been his compelling reason for bringing his new concept offunction to
the fore. He accepted any function defined by a formula {(x) in - I < x < l,
and regarded { (x + 2l) : {(x) to be the definition of the curve outside ( l, /).
-
In a later papera he goes further; he says that
(14) y :$(ct *
x) +,!(ct - x),
with arbitrary $ znd ,1, is a solution of
(t5) I 0'g 0'g

7 aF: *'
This follows by substitution in the differential equation. But the initial
curve is equally satisfactory, whether it is expressed by some equation, or
whether it is traced in any f,ashion not expressible by an equation. Of the
initial curve, only the part in 0 < x < I is rdevant. The continuation of
this part is not to be taken into consideration. The different parts of this
curve are thus not joined to each other by any law of continuity (single
analytic expression); it is only by the description that they are joined to-
gether. For this reason it may be impossible to comprise the entire curve in
one equation, except when by chance the curve is some sine function.
In 1755 Euler gave as a new definition of function, " If some quantities
depend on others in such a way as to undergo variation when the latter are
varied, t}ten the former are called functions of the latter." And in another
paper6 he says that the parts of a " discontinuous " function do not belong
to one another and are not determined by one single equation for the whole
extent of the function. Moreover, given the initial shape in 0 < x < /, one
repeats it in reverse order in I < x < 0 (so as to make it odd) and conceives
-
the continual repetition of this curve in each interval of length 2l to infinity.
4. Hiit. di l'Acad. de Bcrlin, 9, 1753, 196-222, pub. 1755 : Ofera, (2), 10, 232-54.
5. ll,
Novi Cothm. Acad. Sci. Petro!,, 1765, 67-102, pub. 1767 :
Olua, (l),23,74-91,
TrrE wAvE EqUATTON 5O7
Then, if this curve [y : f(*)] is used to represent the initial function, after
the time I the ordinate that will answer to the abscissa x of the string in
vibration will be (cf. [3] and [12])
(16) u :f,ru +,,) + f,t<r - al.

Inhis basic 1749 paper Euler points out that all possible motions of
the vibrating string are periodic in time whatever the shape of the string;
that is, the period is (usually) the period of what we now caII the funda-
mental. He also realized that individual modes whose periods are one halt
one third, and so on of the basic (fundamental) period can occur as the
vibrating figure. He gives such special solutions as
\- - n17x flnct
(17) !(t,x): ZAnsrn / cos-I
when the initial shape is
(rB) y(0, x) :)/-ri"ff,

but does not say whether the summatjpn covers a finite or infinite number
of terms. Nevertheless he has the idea of superposition of modes. Thus
Euler's main point of disagreement with d'Alembert is that he would admit
all kinds of initial curves, and therefore non-analytic solutions, whereas
d'Alembert accepted only analytic initial curves and solutions.
In introducing his "discontinuous" functions, Euler appreciated that
he had taken a big step forward. fle wrote to d'Alembert on December 20,
1763, that " considering such functions as are subject to no law of continuity
6
[analyticity] opens to us a wholly new range of analysis."
The solution of the vibrating-string problem was given in entirely
different form by Daniel Bernoulli; this work stirred up another ground for
controversy about the allowable solutions. Daniel Bernoulli (1700-82), the
son of John Bernoulli, was a professor of mathematics at St. Petersburg
from 1725 to 1733 and then, successively, professor olmedicine, metaphysics,
and natural philosophy at Basle. His chief work was in hydrodynamics and
elasticity. In the former area, he won a prize for a paper on the flow of the
tides; he also contemplated the application ofthe theory ofthe flow ofliquids
to the flow of blood in human blood vessels. FIe was a skilled experimentalist
and through experimental work discovered the law of attraction of static
electric charges before 1760. This law is usually credited to Charles Coulomb.
Bernoulli's Hgdrodgnamica (1738), which contains studies that appeared in a
number of papers, is the first major text in its field. It has a chapter on the
6. OPera (2),ll, sec. l, 2.

508 PARTTAL DIFFERENTTAL EQUATTONS r 7OO-IBOO
mechanical theory of heat (as opposed to heat as a substance) and gives

many results on the theory of gases.
In his paper of 1732133 cited in the preceding chapter, Bernoulli had
expressly stated that the vibrating string could have higher modes of oscilla-
tions. In a later paper? on composite oscillation of weights on a loaded
vertical flexible string, he made the following remark:
Similarly, a taut musical string can produce its isochronous tremblings
in many ways and even according to theory infinitely many, ... and
moreover in each mode it emits a higher or lower note. The first and
most natural mode occurs when the string in its oscillations produces a
single arch; then it makes the slowest oscillations and gives out the
deepest of all its possible tones, fundamental to all the rest. The next
mode demands that the string produce two arches on the opposite
sides [of the string's rest position] and then the oscillations are twice as
fast, and now it gives out the octave of the fundamental sound.
Then he describes the higher modes. He does not give the mathematics but
it seems evident that he had it.
In a paper on the vibrations of a bar and the sounds given off by the
vibrating bar,8 Bernoulli not only gives the separate modes in which the bar
can vibrate but says distinctly that both sounds (the fundamental and a
higher harmonic) can exist together. This is the first statement of the co-
existence of small harmonic oscillations. Bernoulli based it on his physical
understanding of how the bar and the sounds can act but gave no mathe-
matical evidence that the sum of two modes is a solution.
When he read d'Alembert's first paper of 1746 and Euler's paper of
1749 on the vibrating string, he hastened to publish the ideas he had had for
many years.s After indulging in sarcasm about the abstractness of d'Alem-
bert's and Euler's works, he reasserts that many modes of a vibrating string
can exist simultaneously (the string then responds to the sum or super-
position of all the modes) and claims that this is all that Euler and d'Alem-
bert have shown. Then comes a major point. He insists that a// possible initial
curves are representable as
\- hrt
. ---r-
(le) (*) : 2 4n Stn
"f LtL
because there are enough constants a, to make the series fit any curve. Hence,
he asserts, a/l subsequent motions would be
: s- nfix nfict
(20) g(t, x)
Zo"srn-7-cos-7-.
7 . Comm. Acad. Sci. Pctro!., 12, l?40, 97-108, pub. 1750.
8. Comm. Acad. Sci. Peho!., 13, 1741143, 167-96, pub. 1751.
9. Hist. de I'Acad. de Berlin, 9, 1753, 147-72 and I 73-95, pub' 1755.
THE ll/A\rE EQUATTON 5O9
Thus every motion corresponding to any initial curve is no more than a sum
of sinusoidal periodic modes, and the combination has the frequency of the
fundamental. However, he gives no mathematical arguments to back up his
contentions; he relies on the physics. In this paper of 1753 Bernoulli states:
My conclusion is that all sonorous bodies include an infinity of sounds

with a corresponding infinity of regular vibrations. . ' . But it is not of
this multitude of sounds that Messrs. d'Alembert and Euler claim to
speak. ... Each kind [each fundamental mode generated by some
initial curve] multiplies an infinite number of times to accord to
each interval an infinite number of curves, such that each point starts,
and achieves at the same instant, these vibrations while, following the
theory of Mr' Taylor, each interval between two nodes should assume
the form of the companion of the cycloid [sine function] extremely
elongated.
We then remark that the chord AB cannot make vibrations only
conforming to the first figure [fundamental] or second [second har-
monic] or third and so forth to infinity but that it can make a combina-
tion of these vibrations in all possible combinations, and that all new
curves given by d'Alembert and Euler are only combinations of the
Taylor vibrations.
In this last remark Bernoulli ascribesknowledge to Taylor that Taylor

never displayed. This apart, however, Bernoulli's contentions were enor-
mously significant.
Euler objected at once to Bernoulli's last assertion. In fact Euler's 1753
paper presented to the Berlin Academy (already referred to above) was in
puit a .eply to Bernoulli's t\ /o PaPers. Euler emphasizes the imPortance of
the wave equation as the starting point for the treatment of the vibrating
string. He praises Bernoulli's recognition that many modes can exist simul-
taneously so that the string can emit many harmonics in one motion, but
denies, as did d'Alembert, that all possible motions can be expressed by (20)'
He admits that an initial curve such as
(21) to:ffii' c sin(axll)

l'l <r,
can be expressed by a series such as (19). Bernoulli would be borne out if
every function could be represented by an infinite trigonometric series, but
this Euler regards as impossible. A sum of sine functions is, Euler says, an
odd periodic function. But in his solution (see [16]),
(22) y(t, x) : f,tA * ct) + +lQc - ct),

5ro PARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS r TOO-r BOO
/is arbirary (discontinuous, in Euler's sense) and so cannot be expressed as

a sum of sine functions. In fact, he says,lf could be a combination of arcs
spread out over the infinite,r domain and be odd and periodic; yet because
it is discontinuous (in Euler's sense), it cannot be expressed as a sum of sine
curves. His own solution, he affirms, is not limited in any respect. The initial
curve, in fact, need not be expressible by an equation (single analytic
expression).
Euler also pointed, in this instance rightly, to the Maclaurin series and
said this could not represent any arbitrary function; hence neither could
an infinite sine series. All he would grant was that Bernoulli's trigonometric
series represented special solutionsl and indeed he (Euler) had obtained
such solutions in his 1749 paper (see [17] and [lB]).
D'Alembert, in his article " Fondamental " in Volume 7 (1757) of the
Encyclopldic, also attacked Bernoulli. He did not believe that all odd and
periodic functions could be represented by a series such as (19), because the
series is twice differentiable but all odd and periodic functions need not be
so. However, even when the initial curve is sufficiently difie rentiable-and
d'Alembert did require that it be twice differentiable in his 1746 paper-
it need not be representable in Bernoulli's form, On the same ground
d'Alembert objected to Euler's discontinuous curves. Actually d'Alembert,s
requirement that the initial curve y : ;t(*) must be twice differentiable
was correct, because a solution derived frorn an f(x) that does not have a
second derivative at some value or values of * must satisfy special conditions
at such singular points.
Bernoulli did not retreat from his position. In a letter of 175810 he
repeats that he had in the an an ipfinite number of coefficients at his disposal,
and so by choosing them properly could make the series in (19) agree with
any function ../(x) at an infinite number of points. In any case he insisted
that (20) was the most general solution. The argument between d'Alembert,
Euler, and Bernoulli continued for a decade with no agreement reached,
The essence of the problem was the extent of the class of functions that
could be represented by the sine series, or, more generally, by Fourier series.
In I 759, Lagrange, then young and unknown, entered the controversy.
In his paper, which dealt with the nature and propagation of sound,l1
he gave some results on that subject and then applied his method to the
vibrating string. He proceeded as though he were tackling a new problem
but repeated much that Euler and Daniel Bernoulli had done before.
Lagrange, too, started with a string loaded with a finite number of equal
and equally spaced masses and then passed to the limit of an infinite number
of masses. Though he criticized Euler's method as restricting the results to
continuous (analytic) curves, Lagrange said he would prove that Euler's
10. Jour. des Sgauans, March 1758, 157-66.
ll. Misc. Taur,, ls, 1759, i-x, l-ll2 : @uure, l, 39-148.
THE 1^/AI'E EqUATION 5II
conclusion, that any serve, is correct. We shall Pass at
initial curve can
once to Lagrange's conclusion for the continuous string. He had obtained
(23) y(x,t) :?i,t T2'^'# *Ir,",,!f + *,n,"^])'

Here Io and V, are the initial displacement and initial velocity of the qth
mass. He then replaced Y, and Vo by f(x) and' V(x) respectively' Lagrange
regarded the quantities
(24)
.L -"' EI Y(x\
i .i. i ,in '4I vb\
-'"'-'-ilx and L " a*
C=l q=l
as integrals and he took the integration operation outside the summation

),a1. From these moves there resulted
(25) s(x,t) : (?ij,,-,

I'. ? o)'^T "o"T
. l:l"r@21",,T o.)'^'f ,in'ff'
The interchange of summation and integration not only introduced
divergent series but spoiled whatever chance Lagrange might have had to
recognize
(20) [' Y61"i"'!f a*

as coefficient. After other long, difficult, and dubious
a Fourier steps,
Lagrange obtained Euler's and d'Alembert's result
(27) y: $(ct + x) + {(a - *).
He concluded that the above derivation put the theory ofthis great geometer
[Euler]
beyond all doubt and established on direct and clear principles which
rest in no way on the law of continuity [analyticity] which Mr'
d'Alembert requires; this, moreover, is how it can happen that the same
formula that has served to support and prove the theory of Mr. Bernoulli
on the mixture of isochronous vibrations when the number of bodies
is . . . finite shows us its insufficiency . . . when the number of these
bodies becomes infinite. In fact, the change that this formula undergoes
in passing from one case to the other is such that the simple motions
which made up the absolute motions of the whole system annul each
5r2 PARTIAL DIFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS r 7OO-I8OO
other for the most part, and those which remain are so disfigured and
altered as to become absolutely unrecognizable. It is truly annoying
that so ingenious a theory ... is shown false in the principal case, to
which all the small reciprocal motions occurring in nature may be
related.
All of this is almost total nonsense.

Lagrange's main basis for contending that his solution did not require
the initial curve f (.r) and initial velocity V(x) to be restricted is that he did
not apply differentiation to them. But if one were to rigorize what he did do,
restrictions would have to be made.
Euler and d'Alembert criticized Lagrange's work but actually did not
hit at the main failings; they picked on details in his " prodigious calcula-
tions," as Euler put it. Lagrange tried to answer these criticisms. The replies
and rebuttals on both sides are too extensive to relate here, though many
are revealing of the thinking of the times, For example, Lagrange replaced
sin zlm for m : a by rlm and sin vtt l2m by vrl2m for m : @. D'Alembert
allowed the first but not the second, because the values of v involved were
comparable with rn. The objection that a series of the form
cosr+cos2*+cos3*+...
might be divergent was also raised by d'Alembert and answered by Lagrange
with the argument, common at that time, that the value of the series is the
value of the function from which the series comes.
Tlough Euler did criticize mathematical details, his overall response to
Lagrange's paper, communicated in a letter of October 23, 1759,12 was to
commend Lagrange's mathematical skill and to state that it put the whole
discussion beyond all quibbling, and that everyone must now recognize the
use of irregular and discontinuous (in Euler's sense) functions in this class of
problems.
On October 2, 1759, Euler wrote Lagrange: "I am delighted to learn
that you approve my solution . . . which d'Alembert has tried to undermine
by various cavils, and that for the sole reason that he did not get it himself.
He has threatened to publish a weighty refutation; whether he really will
I do not know. He thinks he can deceive the semi-learned by his eloquence.
I doubt whether he is serious, unless perhaps he is thoroughly blinded by
self-love." 1s
In 1760/61 Lagrange, seeking to answer criticisms of d'Alembert and
Bernoulli that had been communicated by letter, gave a different solution of
the vibrating-string problem.la This time he starts directly with the wave
12. Lagrange, (Ewres, 14, 164-70.

13. (Euvrx, 14, 162-64.
14. Misc. Taur.,2z, 1760161,11-172, pub. 1762 : (Ewres, l, l5l-316.
THE WAVE EqUATION 5r3
equation (with r: t), and by multiplying

by an unknown function and
fuither steps he reduces the partial differential equation to the solution of
two ordinary differential equations. Then by still further steps, not all
correct, Lagrange obtains the solution
y(t, x) : lrra * q + ;fQ, -,1 - l[,." ar + f,|.-' s ar,
wherein;f(r) : y(0, *) and g(*) : : O are the given initial data'

Aglu at t
As Lagrange shows, this agrees with d'Alembert's result' But then, without
refe.ence to his own work, he tries to convince his readers that he did not
use any law of continuity (analyticity) for the initial curve. It is true that he
did not use any direct operation of diflerentiation on the initial function.
But, in this paper also, to justify rigorously his limit procedures, one cannot
avoid assumptions about the continuity and differentiability of the initial
functions.
The debate raged throughout the 1760s and 1770s' Even Laplace
entered the fray in l779,Li and sided with d'Alembert' D'Alembert con-
tinued it in a series of booklets, entitled Opuscuhs, which began to appear in
1768. He argued against Euler, on the ground that Euler admitted too
general initial curves, and against Daniel Bernoulli, on the ground that his
(d'Alembert's) solutions could not be represented as a sum of sine curves,
so that Bernoulli's solutions were not general enough. The idea that the
infinite series of trigonometric functions 2f=t a^ sin zx might be made to fit
any initial curve because there is an infinity ofao's to be determined (Daniel
Bernoulli had by Euler as impossible to execute.
so contended) was rejected
He also raised the question ofhow a trigonometric series could rePresent the
initial curve when only a part of the string is disturbed initially. Euler,
d'Alembert, and Lagrange continued throughout to deny that a trigonometric
series could represent any analytic function, to say nothing of more arbitrary
functions.
Many of the arguments each presented were grossly incorrect; and the
results, in the eighteenth century, were inconclusive' One major issue,
the representability of an arbitrary function by trigonometric series, was not
settled until Fourier took it up. Euler, d'Alembert, and Lagrange were on
the threshold of discovering the significance of Fourier series but did not
appreciate what lay before them. Judging by the knowledge of the times, all
th.ee me, and Bernoulli were correct in their main contentions' D'Alem-
bert, following a tradition established since Leibniz's time, insisted that
functions must be analytical, so that any problem not solvable in such terms
was unsolvable. He was also correct in the argument he gave that y(t, x)
15. Min. de l'Acad, dcs Sci., Paris, l?79,207-309, pub' 1782 : CEuurcs, 10, l-89'
514 PARTTAL DIEFERENTTAL EQUATTONS r 7OO-rBoo
must be periodic in .r. Ilowever, he failed to realize that, given any arbitrary
function in, say, 0 I x 1 l, this function could be repeated in every interval
[nl, (n + l){ for integral z and so be periodic. Of course, such a periodic
function might not be representable by one (closed) formula. Euler and
Lagrange were, at least in their time,;justified in believing that not all
" discontinuous " functions could be represented by Fourier series, yet equally
right in believing (though they did not have proof) that the initial curve can
be very general. It need not be analytic, nor need it be periodic. Bernoulli
did adopt the correct position on physical grounds but could not back it
up with the mathematics.
One of the very curious features of the debate on the trigonometric
series representation of functions is that all the men involved knew that non-
periodic functions can be represented (in an interval) by trigonometric
series. Reference to Chapter 20 (sec. 5) will show that Clairaut, Euler, Daniel
Bernoulli, and others had actually produced such representations; many of
their papers also had the formulas for the coefficients of the trigonometric
series. Practically all of this work was in print by 1759, the year in which
Lagrange presented his basic paper on the vibrating string. He could then
have inferred that any function has a trigonometric expansion and could
have read off the formulas for the coefficients, but failed to do so. Only in
1773, when the heat of the controversy was past, did Daniel Bernoulli
notice that the sum of a trigonometric series may represent different alge-
braic expressions in different intervals. Why did all these results have no
influence on the controversy concerning the vibrating string? It may be
explained in several ways. Many ofthe results on the representation of quite
general functions by trigonometric series were in papers on astronomy, and
Daniel Bernoulli may not have read these and so could not point to them in
ddense of his position. Euler and d'Alembert, who must have known
Clairaut's work of 1757 (Chap. 20, sec. 5), were probably not inclined to
study it, since it refuted their own arguments. Also, this astronomical work by
Clairaut was soon superseded and forgotten. On the other hand, whereas
Euler used trigonometric series, as in his work on interpolation theory, to
represent polynomial expressions, he did not accept the general fact that
quite arbitrary functions could be so represented; the existence of such a
series representation, where he used it, was assured by other means.
Another issue, how a partial diflerential equation with analytic coeffi-
cients (e.g. constants) could have a non-analytic solution, was not really
clarffied. In the case of ordinary differential equations, if the coefficients are
analytical, the solutions must be. However, this is not true for partial
differential equations. Though Euler was correct in saying that solutions
with corners are admissible (and he did insist on it), determination of the
singularities that are admissible in the solution of partial diflerential equa-
tions was still far in the future.
EXTENSTONS OF THE WAVE EQUATION 5I5
3. Extensions of tlu Waae Equation

While the controversy over the vibrating string was being carried on, the
interest in musical instruments prompted further work, not only on vibra-
tions of physical structures but also on hydrodynamical questions which
concern the propagation of sound in air. Mathematically, these involve
extensions of the wave equation.
An 1762 Euler took up the problem of the vibrating string with variable
thickness./i{e had been stimulated by one of the principal questions of
musical aesthetics. Jean-Philippe Rameau (1683-1764) had explained
(1726) that the consonance of a musical sound is due to the fact that the
component tones ofany one sound are harmonics of the fundamental tone;
that is, their frequencies are integral multiples ofthe fundamental frequency.
But Euler, in his Tcntamen Noaae Theoriae Musicae (1739)16 maintained that
onlv in prooer musical instruments were the overtones harmonics of the
f,rrriu*or,ui ,on 4f.therefore undertook to show that the string of variable
thickness or nonuniform density o(x) and tension 7 gives off inharmonic
overtones,
The partial differential equation becomes
| 0'g 0'y
(28)
V ata: #'
with c now a function of r. The first substantial results were obtained by
Euler in a paper, " On the Vibratory Motion of Non-Uniformly Thick
Strings."17 The general solution he declares to be beyond the power of
analysil/He obtains a solution in the special case where the mass distribution
o is given by
:9-r,
o : --
(' * i).
wherein os and o are constants. Then
v : (r + ) + c",) + rt"+ - .)],

[rt".,
where eo : {T-n. The frequencies of the modes or harmonics are given by
:
'r : *,(' . *) {T-1oo, k 1,2,3, "'
16. Opua, (3), l, 197427 .
t7. Noai Comm. Acatl. Sci. Petrop.,9,1762163,246-304, pub. 1764 : Olaa, (2),10,293-3+3'
516 PARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EQUATIONS r 7OO-rBOO
Thus the ratio of two successive frequencies is the same as for a string of
uniform thickness, but the fundamental frequency is no longer inversely
proportional to the length.
/ In this paper of 1762163 Euler also considered the vibrations of a string
composed of two lengths , a and. D, of different thicknesses m and n. He
derived the equation for the frequencies ar of the modes. These turn out to
be solutions of
uta nta\-ofi :0,
(2e) tntaln +
-mt1
and he solves for <., in special cases. The solutions of (29) are called the
characteristic values or eigenvalues of the problem. These values are, as we
shall see, of prime importance in the theory of partial differential equations.
It is almost evident from (29) that the characteristic frequencies are not
integral multiples of the fundamental one.
However, Euler took up this question again in another paper on the
vibrating string of variable thickness,ls and starting with (28) he shows that
there are functions c(r) for which the frequencies of the higher modes are
not integral multiples of the fundamental.
D'Alembert, too, took up the string of variable thickness.lo Here he
used a significant method of solution that he had introduced earlier for the
string of constant density. In this earlier attempt at the vibrating-sring
problem d'Alembert had introduced the idea ofseparation ofvariables, which
is now a basic method of solution in partial differential equations|To
solve
x) _ -2 azlU,
02y(t,
--ZtT--'--aF- tc)
d'Alembert sets
y : h(t) s(x),
substitutes this in the differential equation, and obtains
L h"(t) _ e'@)
(30)
a2 h(t) e@)
He then argues, as we do now, that since g'/g does not vary when tr does, it
must be a constant, and by the like argument applied to h" lh, this expression
too must be a constant. The two constants are equal and are denoted by l.
Thus he gets the two separate ordinary differential equations
h'(t) - a2Ah(t) :0
(31)
e'@)-Ag(x):s.
18. Mise. Taur., 3, 1762165,25-59, pub. 1766 : Olera, (2), 10, 397-425.
19. Hist. de l'Acad. de Berlin, 19, 1763' 242 ff., pub. 1770.
20. H;st. de I'Acad. de Berlin,6, 1750, 335-60, pub. 1752.
EXTENSTONS OF TrrE WAVE EQUATION 517
Since a and ,4 are constants, each of these equations is readily solvable, and
d'Alembert gets
y(t,x) : h(t) g(") : fMsorT't + Ne-o{a4ffPeti'x 1 gr-r7'1.
The end-conditions, y(1, 0) : 0 and y(t, l) : 0, led d'Alembert to assert
that g(x) must be of the form ,t sin .Rx and that i(t)
must be of the same form
because y(r, *)
must be periodic in l. He left the matter there. Daniel Ber-
noulli had used the idea of separation of variables in 1732 in his treatment
of the vibrations of a chain suspended from one end, but d'Alembert was
more explicit, despite the fact that he did not comPlete the solution.
In his 1763 paper d'Alembert wrote the wave equation as
*": *al*
UI, U*
and sought solutions of the form

: E(x) cos lzrl.
"
He obtained for ( the equation
d.'{ - )r'o'(
(32)
#:7W'
D'Alembert now had to determine ( so that it was 0 at both ends of the string.
By a detailed analysis he showed that there are values of tr for which ( meets
this condition. He did not appreciate in this work that there are infinitely
many values of A. The significance of the investigation is that it is another
step in the direction of boundary value or eigenvalue problems for ordinary
differen tial equations.
of a luauy continuous horizontal cord was
The transverse oscillation
taken up by Euler. In the paper, "On the Modifying Effect of Their Own
21 Euler obtains the differential equation
Weight on the Motion of Strings,"
lo
)t": ft + Y**.
For constant c and with fixed ends at x : O and x : l, Euler finds that
- t)
y: _$,z)sx_V + gQt + x) +,lt(ct _ x).
Thus the results are the same as for the " weightless " string (where the
gravitational force is ignored), except that the oscillation takes place about
the parabolic figure of equilibrium
(tl2)gx(x - l)
u: -
"c'
21. Acta Acart. Sci --;-
Petrop.,l, 1781, 178-90, pub. 1784 = Olera, (2),11,324-54, but dating
from 1774.
5r8 PARTTAL DTPFERENTTAL BquATroNs rToo-r8oo
/ e, *" shall see in a moment, Euler had introduced all the Bessel
functions of the first kind in a paper on the vibrating drum (see also Chap.
21, secs. 4 and 6) and in this lTBl paper he remarks that it is possible to
express any motion by a series of Bessel functions (despite the fact that he
had argued against Daniel Bernoulli's claim, in the vibrating-string problem,
that any function can be represented as a series of trigonometric functions).
Papers on the vibrating string and the hanging chain, of which the
above are just samples, were published by many other men up to the
end of the century. The authors continued to disagree, correct each other,
and make all sorts of errors in doing so, including contradicting what they
themselves had previously said and even proven. They made assertions,
contentions, and rebuttals on the basis of loose arguments and often just
personal predilections and convictions. Their references to paPers to Prove
their contentions did not prove what they claimed. They also resorted to
sarcasm, irony, invective, and self-praise. Mingled with these attacks were
seeming ag?eements expressed in order to curry favor, particularly with
d'Alembert, who had considerable influence with Frederick II of Prussia
and as director of the Berlin Academy of Sciences.
The second order partial differential equation problems described thus
far involved only one space variable and time. The eighteenth century did
not go much beyond this. In a paper of 175922 Euler took up the vibration
of a rectangular drum, thus considering a two-dimensional body. He ob-
tained for the vertical displacement z of the surface of the drum 1l
l02z 022
-L
022
(33)
c2 atz -axz -.0!''
wherein x and, g represent the coordinates of any point on the drum and a is
deterrnined by the mass and tension. Euler tried
z: a(x,y) sin (<,rI * o)
and found that
- :'-a2u* ;-=
02a 02a
U
ox' * -'
o!'
This equation has sinusoidal solutions of the form
a : sin (+. ,\,r" (f + c)
where
a2 F',.y',
7:A*F'
Noai Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop., lO, 176+,243-60, pub. 1766: Opela, (2),10'344-59.
EXTENSTONS OF THE r^/AVE EqUATTON 5I9
The dimensions of the drum are a and b, so that 0 < x < aand0 <y < b.
When the initial velocity is 0, B and. C may be taken to be 0. If the boundaries
are fixed, then p : mr and, y : ntr where m and n are integers. Then,
since ar : 2rru where r is the frequency per second, he obtains readily that
the frequencies are
t lT7
v:2cnl7+P'
He then considers a circular drum and transforms (33) to polar coor-
dinates (a highly original step), obtaining
(34)
I 022 022 l0z I 022
c20t2-0r2,r0r'12062
--L---!---
He now tries solutions of the form
(35) z : u(r) sin (art * l) sin (B{ + B)
so that z(r) satisfies
(36) u' +Lu'

/ + P: 4\,
\c' - r'l
: o.
Ifere Bessel's equation appears in the current form (Cf. Chap. 21, sec. 6).
Euler then calculates a power series solution
:
"(:,) u{' - mh ff;)' .,?m,imr?) (;;)'. )'
which wb would write now as
"(1')
: (i)"'"u *'t" (i')'
Since the edge r: a must remain 6xed,
(37) ,,(:.) : o.
It also follows from (35), since z must be of period 2tr in $, that p is an in-
teger. Euler asserts that for a fixed B there are infinitely many roots a, so
that infinitely many simple sounds result. However, he did not calculate
these roots. He did attempt to find a second solution of (36) but liniled to do
so. The theory of the vibrating membrane was derived independently by
Poisson2s and is often credited solely to him.
Euler, Lagrange, and others worked on the propagation ofsound in air.
Euler wrote on the subject of sound frequently from the time he was twenty
23. Mln. dc I'Acad. des Sci., Paris, (2), 8, 1829, 357-570.

52O PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATTONS ITOO-IBOO
years old (1727) ar,d established this field as a branch of mathematical

physics. His best work on the subject followed his major papers ofthe 1750s on
hydrodynamics. Air is a compressible fluid, and the theory of the propaga-
tion of sound is part of fluid mechanics (and of elasticity, because air is also
an elastic medium). However, to treat the propagation of sound he made
reasonable simplifications of the general hydrodynamical equations'
Three fine and definitive papers were read to the Berlin Academy in
1759. In the first, "On the Propagation of Sound,"2a Euler considers the
propagation of sound in one space dimension. After some approximations,
which amount to considering waves of small amplitude, he is led to the
one-dimensional wave equation
02u 28h5fr'
^ - 02u
-2rz:
where y is the amplitude of the wave at the point x and at time l, g is the
acceleration of gravity and i is a constant relating the pressure and density.
This equation, as Euler of course recognized, is the same as that for the
vibrating string and he did nothing mathematically new in solving it'
In his second paper's Euler gives the two-dimensional equation of
propagation in the form
(38) buu: *#**r*r9-r' o'g o'* .

:.rfu- -", AXAY'
atz ' aY2'.-
where x and y are the wave amplitudes in the X-direction and Y-direction
respcctively, or th. components of the displacement, and 6 : 1/Tgh. Ue
gives the plane wave solution
3: og(aX + BY + c{V-Tp't),y F6@x + pv +: + p't), 't/7

where { is an arbitrary function and a and p are arbitrary constants. Then
letting
0x 0u
(3e) "-ax'aY
tt-- -L --!-
(u is called the divergence of the displacement), he gets the two-dimensional

wave equation
| 02a a't o'z)
(40)
7 atz - axz r_-
-_ ' ay2
He also states the need for the superposition of solutions to obtain the most
general solution of the problem in order to meet some initial condition, that
is, the value of u or of ,r and y at t : 0.
24. Mdn. de I'Acad. de Bulin, 15, 1759, 185-209, pub. 1766, : Opera, (3), l, 428-51.
25. Mim. de l'Acad. de Berlin, 15, 1759,21G-40, pub. 1766 : Oietq (3)' l, 452-43.
EXTENSIONS OF THE l,lr'A\rE EqUATION 52r
Euler then shows how he can get the differential equation whose solu-
tions are called cylindrical waves because the wave spreads out like an
expanding cylinder. He lets Z : \/71-+-fr and introduces o : f(2, t)
whererfis arbitrary. By letting x : ttX and g : aY,he obtains from (40)
I 020 3 0a 02a
V aP: Z-az - dV'
He also obtains in this paper in a similar manner the three-dimensional
wave equation
I O'a O'O O'A O'A
- AX2 t Ayz t
(41) __!__!--
;2 Atz AZ2'
where a is again the divergence of the displacement (x, y, z). Euler gives
plane wave and spherical wave solutions using the kind of substitution just
indicated for cylindrical waves. The basic equation for spherical waves is
i?.:!r?,.f*, v: \/?n-+nd + z'.

Much of the above work on spherical and cylindrical waves was also
done independently by Lagrange at the end of the year 1759. Each com-
municated his results to the other. Though there are many deteils in which
Lagrange's work differs from Euler's, there are no major mathematical
points worthy of being related here.
From the propagation of sound waves in air it was but a step to the
study of the sounds given offby musical instruments that employ air motion.
This study was initiated by Daniel Bernoulli in 1739. Bernoulli, Euler, and
Lagrange wrote numerous papers on the tones given off by an almost
incredible variety of such instruments. fn a publication of 1762 Daniel
Bernoulli showed that at the open end of a cylindrical tube (organ pipe)
no condensation of air can take place.26 At a closed end the air particles
must be at rest. lle concluded from this that a tube closed at both ends or
open at both ends has the same fundamental mode as a tube of half the
length but open at one end and closed at the other. He also discovered the
theorem that for closed organ pipes the frequencies ofthe overtones are odd
multiples of the frequency of the fundamental. In the same paper Bernoulli
took up pipes of other than cylindrical form, in particular the conical pipe,
for which he obtained expressions for the individual tones (modes) but
recognized that these hold only for infinite cones and not for the truncated
one. For the (infinite) conical pipe the overtones proved to be harmonic to
the fundamental. Bernoulli confirmed many of his theoretical results by
experiments.
26. Mim. de I'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1762,431-85, pub. 1764.

522 PARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS rTOO-rBOO
Euler, too, studied cylindrical pipes and non-cylindrical figures of

revolutionsT and considered reflection at open and closed ends. The efforts
of these men were directed toward understanding flutes; organ pipes; all
sorts of horns of hyperboloidal, conical, and cylindrical shape; trumpets;
bugles; and other wind instruments.
On the whole these efforts to solve partial differential equations in
three and four variables were limited, mainly because the solutions were
expressed in series involving several variables as opposed to simpler trigo-
nometric series in .r and , separately (cf. [20]). But the mathematicians
knew too little about the functions that appeared in these more complicated
series and about methods of determining the coefficients, Such methods
were soon developed.
It is worth mentioning that Euler, in considering the sound of a bell
and reconsidering some of the problems of the vibrations of rods, was led to
fourth order partial differential equations. Ilowever, he was unable to do
much with them and in fact, for the rest of the century no progress was made
with them.
4. Pokntial Tluory
The dcvelopment of the subject ofpartial differential equations was furthered
by another class of physical investigations. One of the major problems of the
eighteenth century was the determination of the amount of gravitational
attraction one mass exerts on another, the prime cases being the attraction
of the sun on a planet, ofthe earth on a particle exterior or interior to it, and
of the earth on another extended mass. When the two masses are very far
apart compared to their sizes, it is possible to treat them as point masses;
but in other cases, notably the earth attracting a particle, the extent of the
earth must be taken into account. Clearly the shape of the earth must be
known if one is to calculate the gravitational attraction its distributed mass
exerts on a particle or another distributed mass. Although the precise shape
remained a subject for investigation (Chap. 21, sec. l), it was already clear
by 1700 that it must be some form of ellipsoid, perhaps an oblate spheroid
(an ellipsoid generated by revolving an ellipse around the minor axis). For
the solid oblate spheroid the force of attraction both on an external and on
an internal particle cannot be calculated as though the mass were concen-
trated at the center.
In a prize paper of l74O on the tides, and in his Treatise of Fluxions
(1742), Maclaurin proved that, for a fluid of uniform density under constant
angular rotation, the oblate spheroid is an equilibrium shape. Then Mac-
laurin proved synthetically that, given two confocal homogeneous ellipsoids
27. Nooi Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop., 16,1771,281425, pub. 1772 : Ofera, (2), 13,262-369.
POTENTIAL TI{EORY 523
Figure 22.2 lor x
of revolution, the attractions of the two bodies on the same particle external
to both, provided the particle be on the prolongation ofthe axis of revolution
or in the plane of the equator' will be proportional to the volumes. Some
other limited results were also established geometrically in the nineteenth
century by James Ivory (1765-1842) and Michel Chasles-
The geometrical approach to the problem of gravitational attraction
used by Newton, Maclaurin, and others is good only for special bodies and
special locations of the attracted masses. This approach soon Save way to
analytical methods, which one finds first in papers by Clairaut before 1743
and especially in his famous book Thioic dc la fgurc de la tcrrc ( I 743) , in
which he considers both the shape of the earth and gravitational atEaction.
Let us first note some facts about the analytical formulation. The
gravitational force exerted by an extended body on a unit mass P regarded
as a particle is the sum of the forces exerted by all the small masses that make
up the body. If d{ dl d( is a small volume of the body (Fig. 22.2), so small
that it may be regarded as a particle centered at the Point (f, l, (), and if
P has the coordinates (*,y, r), the attraction exerted by the small mass of
density p on the unit particle is a vector directed from P to the small mass
and, in view of the Newtonian law of gravitation' the components of this
vector are (Chap. 21, sec. 7)
--c z-f
-rr* i* d(dqd{, -kpc+d(&1d(, -rpTd{fidt'
where ,t is the constant in the Newtonian law and
Of course p may be a function of f, 21, and ( or, in the case of a homogeneous

body, a constant.
PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATTONS I TOo-IBOO
52+
The force exerted by the entire body on the unit mass at P has the
components
"r-:-olll ,+ddndL
(42) on+dtd,tdt
^:-rlll
f":-rlll ,+d€d,td(,
wherein the integral is extended over the entire attracting body. These
integrals are finite and correct also when P is inside the attracting body'
Instead of treating each component of the force separately, it is possible
to introduce one function V(x, y, z) whose partial derivatives with respect to
x, y, and z respectively are the three components of the force' This function
is
(43) V(x,Y, z) : III : d€ dl d(.
By differentiating under the integral sign with resPect to x,y, and z which
are involved in r, one obtains
av l- 0v l- av 1.
fi:7J*, @:1t", E:EJ-
and these equations also hold when P is inside the attracting body' The
function Z is called a potential function. When problems involving the three
componentslf , f, and f" can be reduced to the problem of working with tr/,
there is the advantage of working with one function instead of three.
If one knows the distribution of mass inside the body, which means
knowing p as a function of (, 1, and (, and if one knows the precise shape of
the body, one can sometimes calculate Zby actually evaluating the integral'
However, for most shapes of bodies this triple integral is not integrable in
terms of simple functions. Moreover, we do not know the true distribution ol
mass inside the earth and other bodies. Hence Z must be determined in
other ways. The principal lact about Z is that for points (*, g, ") outside the
attracting body, it satisfies the partial differential equation
(44)
a2v* a2v* ;-=
-:-=
a2V
: U'
otc' =-=
ag' o z'
in which we note that p does not appear. This differential equation is known
as the potential equation and as Laplace's equation.
The idea that a force can be derived from a potential function, and
even the term "potential function," were used by Daniel Bernoulli in
POTENTIAL THEORY 525
Hgdrodynamica (1738). The Potential equation itself appears for the first
time in one of Euler's major papers composed in 1752, " Principles of the
Motion ol Fluids." 28 In dealing with the components u, a, and p of the ve-
locity of any point in a fluid, Euler had shown that u dx + o dy + w dz must
be an exact differential. He introduces the function S such that d.S :
udx * odg + u dz. Then
as
U:.;-,
a,s W:;-'as
A: -;-,
ox oy oz
But the motion of incompressible fluids is subject to what is called the law
of continuity, namely,
0u 0o 0w
(45) :-*;-*-:U'
ox o.u oz
which expresses mathematically the fact that no matter is destroyed or
created during the motion. Then it follows that
a2S a2S A2S
--L--!-:tt oy'
ox' oz'
How to solve this equation generally, Euler says, is not known I so he con-
siders just special cases where ,S is a polynomial in x, y, and z. The function
,S was later (1868) called by Helmholtz the velocity Potential. In a paper
published in 17622s Lagrange reproduced all of these quantities, which he
took over from Euler without acknowledgment, though he did improve the
order of the ideas and the expressions'
Before we can investigate the work done to solve the potential equation
in behalf of gravitational attraction, we must review some eflorts to evaluate
this attraction directly by means of the integrals (42) or the equivalents in
other coordinate systems.
In a paper written in l7B2 but published in 1785, entitled " Recherches
sur I'attraction des sph€roides," 30 Legendre, interested in the attraction
exerted by solids of revolution, proved the theorem: If the attraction of a
solid of revolution is known for every external point on the prolongation of
its axis, then it is known for every external point' He first expressed the
component ofthe force of attraction in the direction ofthe radius vector r by
means of
(46) P (r, 0, O) r'2 sin 0' d0' d$' dt' ,
28. Noai Comn. Acad. Sci. Petro!., 6, 1756157, 271-311, pub. 1761 = Opcra, (2), 12,
133-68.
29. Misc. Taur., 221760/61, 196-298, pub. 1762 : (Euures, 1, 365-'168.
30. MCn. des sao. itrangers, 10, 1785, 41 l-34.
526 PARTIAL DTFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS r 7OO-r 8OO
Figurc 22.3 t
where (Fig. 22.3) r is the radius vector to the attracted point, r'is the radius
vector to any point of the attracting body, and y is the angle formed at the
center ofthe body by the two radii vectors. The { coordinate of the external
point can be taken to be 0 because the solid is a figure of revolution around
the z-axis. Then he expanded the integrand in powers of r'/r. This is done
by writing the denominator as
u
[, - (, ': .", ,- t)]'"
The quantity in the brackets can be put into the numerator and then ex-
panded by the binomial theorem with the quantity in parentheses as the
second term of the binomial. Legendre obtained for the integrand, apart
from the volume element, the series
{t * sP,1"o, t)t, + SPa(cos r)'} + 7Pu(cos f# . --).
The coefficients Pz, P4, . . . are rational integral functions of cos 7. These
functions are what we now call the Legendre polynomials or Laplace coeffi-
cients or zonal harmonics. Legendre gave the form of the functions so that
the general Po, namely,
(47) P^(x) : (2n - r)(2!-- 3)" 't .
[.^ _ n(n - l) _*-, -n(n - l)(n - 2)(n - 3).o-r _,....].

f 2Qn t)' ' 2.4.(2n 1)(2n 3) '
- - l' -
could be inferred.
He could now integrate with respect to r', and he obtained
3II{+ + !&{"o, t)$ +}4po"yyI +...)sin 0' d0'd4',

POTENTIAL THEORY 527
where l? : f(0') is the value of / a given 0' (it is independent of {').

^t
He then had to integrate with respect to {'' For this he used31
cos 7 : cos 0 cos d' + sin 0 sin d'cos {''
Having established the subsidiary result
lf'-
' Pr,(cos Y) d6' : Prn(cos o)P3o(cos d'),
J"
he obtained finally
P(r,0,0) :4 t
L ffiP,,(.,o' e1\'
where
*
o": TlM R2n+a pr,(cos 0,) sin 0,d0,.
f"
The value of this integral depends uPon the shape of the meridiran curves
R:-f(0').
From the above result, and on the basis of a communication from
Laplace, Legendre then obtained the expression for the potential function
for this problem, and from the potential derived the component of the force
of attraction perpendicular to the radius vector.
In a second paper written in 1784,32 Legendre derived some propertics
of the functions Pro. Thus
(48)
li.f{*')r,-ti
*:o
for each rational integral function of x2 whose dcgree in .C is less than z. If
z is any positive integer,
(4e)
2).'.("-2n+2)
Il*"r,â-: + (z
OLl"tn 1) + 3). ..(z * 2m + l)
If m and z are positive integers,
rt (0 fotmln,
(50) l- P2"@)P2-@) :
dx \ r_ fo,^ :
ro [+.+r
n.
31. This cxpression is derived as follows : In vicw of the equations of trancformation from
spherical to r€ctangular coordinates x = 7 sin 0 cos $,y: r sin 0 sin $, z: r coc 0, the
rectangular coordinales of P arc (t sin d cos {, r sin d sin {, z cos d) and the rcctangular
coordinates of Q are (r'sin 0' cos {', r' sin 0' sin $',t' cos 0'). Then using tbe distancc formula
we can express PQ. But by the law of cosines PQ : r' I r'2 ! 2't.'cos 7. Equating ttrc
tv/o expressions for PQ gives the above cxpression for cos 7.
32. Mln. dc t'Acart. dcs Sci., Park, 1784,370-{.9, pub. 1787.
528 PARTTAL DTFTERENTIAL EqUATTONS r 7OO-r8OO
He also proved that the zeros ofeach of the Pro are real, different from each
other, symmetric with respect to 0, and in absolute value less than 1. AIso
for 0 < r < l, P2"(.r) < l.
Then, with the help of the orthogonality condition (50), he proves (by
integration of the series term by term) that a given function of x2 can be
expressed in only one way in a series of functions Prn(x).
Finally, using these and other properties of his polynomials, Legendre
returns to the main problem of gravitational attraction and using the
expression (43) for the potential and the condition for equilibrium of a
rotating fluid mass, he obtains the equation for the meridian curve of such a
mass in the form of a series of his polynomials. He believed that this equation
included all possible equilibrium figures for a spheroid of revolution.
Now Laplace enters the picture. He had written several papers on the
force of attraction exerted by volumes of revolution (1772, pub. 1776;
1773, pub. 1776; and. I775, pub. 1778), in which he worked with the com-
ponents of the force but not the potential function. The article by Legendre
of 1782, published in 1785, inspired a famous and remarkable fourth paper
by Laplace, " Thdorie des attractions des sph6roides et de la figure des
planetes." 33 Without mentioning Legendre, Laplace took up the problem
of the attraction exerted by an arbitrary spheroid as opposed to Legendre's
figures of revolution. By a spheroid Laplace meant any surface given by one
equatiorr in r, 0, and $.
He starts with the theorem that the potential Zof the force an arbitrary
body exerts on an external point, expressed in spherical coordinates r, d, {
with p : cos d, satisfies the potential equation
I AzV
----j- t 02(rV\ : n
.:-!-:--Z
*(u - -,ry*)
(51) -r- -----j-
'l-p'A6' 0r2
Laplace does not say here how he obtained the equation. In a later paperoa
he gives the rectangular coordinate form (44). One may be fairly sure that
he possessed the rectangular form first and derived the spherical coordinate
form from it. In fact, both forms had already been given by Euler and
Lagrange, but Laplace does not mention them. He may not have known
their work, though this is doubtful.
In the l7B2 paper Laplace sets
(52) V(r, 0, $) :UO .ua 'riU" +'..,

r 'r2
33. Min. de I'Acad. des Sci., Pais, 1782, 113-96, pub. 1785 : CEuaret 10, 339-419.
34. Min. de l'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1787, 249-67, pub. 1789 = CEuarest ll, 275-92.
POTENTTAL THEORY 529
where Ur : tl^(0, and' substitutes this in (51)' Then the individual U"
$),
satisfy36
. iT?* * + r)u:
*"lu - Au*f
(s3) o'
^"
With the help of Legendre's Prn he is able to show that
(54) u^@.,4) : ,'".'P2n(cos d cos 0' + sin g sin 0'cos ({ - {'))'

lll
sin 0' d0' d$' dr'.
Now Laplace uses this result and (52) to caiculate the potential of a
spheroid ditrering little from a sphere. lle writes the equation of the surface
of the spheroid as
(55) r: a(l * ag),
where c is small and y on the spheroid is a function of 0' and {'' Laplace
assumes that y(0, {) can be expanded in a series of functions
(56) U:Yo+Yl+Y2*.",
where the Io are functions of d and { and satisfy the differential equation
(53). The result he obtains here is first that
(57) u _2n*117
+L "i'
'r.- 4iult
These Y,, then, may be used in (52). Also the expansion (56) may be recast
as
(58) v(p, 4) : +,) {2" * r) il,i;" Y,(p', i)P*(p, 6, p', 6') dp' ttq',
where p' : cos 0'. With the value of y he now has an expression for r in
(55)
and with this and the U" in (54) he obtains I'/in (52)'
Laplace does not consider here the general problem of the development
ofazy function of 0 and 4 into aseries ofthe Yo' In what he does do here and
in laier papers he presumes that such an expression is possible and is unique'
equation
35. If we ignore the middle term ({ is absent) the resulting ordinary differential
is what we now call Legendre's differcntial equation,
Q - q# - z'** + n(n * r)z: o'
The P"(x) satisfy this equation. On the other hand the Uo (and the
I" in [57]) rcgardcd as
functions'of the two variables p : cos 0 and { satisfy (53)' The Uo zrd Yo are called by
the Germans spherical functions and by Lord Kelvin sphcrical harmonics or spherical
surface harmonics.
53O PARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS r TOO-rBOO
He deals with rational integral functions of p, lT=fi cos d, and {l=T

sin 96, and so his need for the general result is limited. He does prove the
basic orthogonality property
(5e)
i:,J;' u^(p,6)(tô'd) : o, n * n'
However in his Mlcaaique cilcstz, Volume 2, he shows that an arbitrary

function of d and { can be expanded in a series of the Uo (or the I,) and
shows that (59) implies uniqueness of the expansion.
I-aplace wrote several more papers on the attraction ofspheroids and on
the shapc of the earth (e.g. 1783, pub. 1786; 1787, pub. 1789) ; and in these
papen us€s expansions in spherical functions. In the Iast paper, in which
Laplace gave the rectangular coordinate form of the potential equation, he
made one mistake of consequence. He assumed thai this equalion holds
when the point mass being attracted by a body lies inside the body. This
eltor war corrected by Poisson (Chap. 28, sec. 4).
During the 1780s Legendre continued his investigations. His fourth
paper, written in l790,so inuoduced the P"(r) for odd a. The expression for
P"(.r) grven in (a7) is the correct one for all z. Legendre proves that for any
positive integral m and. n
rr (0form / n,
(60)
rI-r ' ' :1 2
r^1x1r"61
"" "' ax form: n.
LET,
Then he too introduces the spherical functions. That is, he lets f, be the
cocfficient ofz"in the expansion of (l - 2zt + z2) -u2 where tr : cos dcos d'
* sin 0 sin d' cos ({ - {'). Then, letting p : cos d, p' : cos 0' and g :
O - i' , he shows that
r,(,) : P,Q,)P*Q,) .
#\l!#rysin dsin 0'cos,lt
+
6=Tp,# 6-TT)W4#9sin2 gsin2 0'cos2,lt *"',
the higher terms containing higher derivatives of P,. This equation is equiv-
alent to
P.(cos 0 cos 0' + sin 0 sin 0' cos($ - d)) :
Pf;(cos d)Pf;(cos 0') cosn($ - g'),
36. Mln. de l'Acad. dx Sci., Pa*, 1789,372454, pub. 1793.

FIRTIT ORDER PARTIAL DIFFERENTTAL EqUATIONS 53I
wherein the z is a superscript and not an exPonent' The Pf(*) satisfy
(61) !*lu -.\#1+ [,t,

+ r1 - /=]rr: o
and the Pf(x) agree up to a constant factor with
1t - *'1^''ff'
The Pf;(*) thus introduced io* called the associated Legendre polyno-
"..
mials. Then Legendre Proves that
(62)
?a frn
tlo(p',,i)PoQ", i, t ',6) dP' d$' : ffi
U,6, f,
J_, J"
and that
(63)
Jl,J.'t"'tulr2
dp'ds = #
The fact that the Po(x) satisfy Legendre's differential equation is used in this
PaPer.
Many other special results involving the Legendre polynomials and
the spherical harmonics were obtained by Legendre, Laplace, and others'
A basic result is the formula of Olinde Rodrigues (1794-185l), given in
t816,37
| dt(xz l)n
(64) n\al - 2nnt d* -
,Dt_\_
Laplace,s work on the solution of the potential equation for the attract-
ing force of spheroids was the beginning of a vast amount of work on this
sJject. Eq"alty important was his and Legendre's work on the Legcndre
pol!r,o-i.L P,(*), the associated Legendre polynomials Pf(*), and the
spherical (surface) harmonics Y^(p, $), because rather arbitrary functions
c-an be expressed in terms of infinite series of the Po, Pf; and' the f"' These
series of functions are analogous to the trigonometric functions, which Daniel
Bernoulli claimed could also be used to represent arbitrary functions. The
choice of class offunctions depends on the differential equation being solved
and on the initial and boundary conditions. Of course far more had to be
done and was to be done with these functions to render them more usdul
in the solution of partial differential equations.
5. First Order Parti.al Difuential Equations

UptothetimeofLagrangetherewasverylittlesystematicworkonfirst
order partial diflerential equations. The second order equations received
37. Corres!. su I'Ecole Poly.,3, 1816' 361-85.
primary attention because the physical problems led directly to them.

A few special first order equations had been solved, but these were either
readily integrated or integrated by tricks. There was one exception, the
equation usually called today a total differential equation and having the
form
(6s) Pdx+Qds*Rdz:0,
where P, Q, and .R are functions of*, y, and z. Such an equation, ifintegrable,
defines z as a function of x and y. Clairaut encountered such equations in
1739 in his work on the shape of the earth.38 If the expression on the left
side of (65) is an exact differential, that is, if there is a function u(x,y, z) : Q
such that
(66) dtt: Pdx A Qdg * Rdz,
then Clairaut points out that
(67)
aP aQ aP: -:-,
: 0x aR aQ aR
dl =-,
=- =-
0z 0x 0z 0y
Clairaut showed how to solve (65) by a method still used in modern texts.
The interest in equation (65) stemmed from the fact that if P, Q, R are com-
ponents of velocity in fluid motion, then (65) has to be an exact diflerential.
If (65) is not an exact differential, then Clairaut also showed that it
may be possible to find an integrating factor, that is, a function p.(x,g, z) such
that when multiplied into (65), it makes the new left side an exact differential.
Clairautse and later d'Alembert (Trail,i de l',iquilibre et du moatement des
fluillcs, 1744) gave a necessary condition that it be integrable (with the aid of
an integrating liactor). This condition (which is also sufficient) is
(68) ,(4, -T).0(#-Y).*(T, -4):o

The gencral first order partial differential equation in two independent
variables is of the form
(6e) -f(x,y, z,?,9) : o,
where 1 : 0xl0z and q : 0zl0g. If the equation is linear in I and 4 then it
is a linear partial differential equation and if not, then nonlinear. The
significant theory was contributed by Lagrange.
Lagrange's terminology, which is still current, must be noted first to
understand his work. He classified solutions ofnonlinear first order equations
ad follows. Any solution V(x,y, z, a, b) : 0 containing two arbitrary con-
stants is the complete solution or complete integral. By letting 6 : $(a) where t$
38. M,im. de l'Acad. des Sci,, Paris, 1739, 425-36.
39. Mln. de l'Acad. des Sci., Pa*, 1740,293-323.
FIRST ORDER PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EqUATIONS 533
is arbitrary, we obtain a one-Parameter family of solutions' When {(a) is

arbitrary, the envelope of this family is called a general integral' When a
definite [(a) is used, the envelope is a particular case of the general integral.
The enveiope of all the solutions in the complete integral is called the
singular intejraL We shall see later what these solutions are geometrically.
Th1 complele integral is not unique in that there can be many diflerent ones'
which are not obtainable from each other by a simple change in the arbitrary
constants. But from any one we can get all the solutions given by another
through the particular cases and the singular integral'
Between two important papers of 1772 and l|19,whiJ[r we shall take up
shortly, Lagrange \Mrote a paper in 1774 discussing the relationships among
!"""*f, and singular solutions of first order partial difierential
"ornpi",", the gene.al integral is obtained by eliminating a ftom V(x,y, z,
equaiio;.
a: O@D : 0 anI AVIAa :0 whe.e f (a) is arbitrary.ao (For a particular {(a)
;" ;";" particular solution.) The singular solution is obtained by eliminat-
ing a and6 ftorn V(x, y, z, a, b) : 0, 7VlOa : 0 and AVpb : 0'
Lagrange gave first the general theory of nonlinear fitst order equations'
In the plper oil772al he considered a general fust order equation with two
independent variables x and y and the dependent variable z' Here he im-
p.o.,"d on and generalized what Euler did earlier' He regarded equation
i69; us gir"t in ihe form where g is a function of *,y, z, andp, namely,
(70) q - Q@,y, z,P) : o
and sought to determine p as a function P of x, y, and' z so that the two

equations
(71) q - Q(x,g, z,p) : O and P - P(x,Y, z) :0
have a single infinity of common integral surliaces, or, as Lagrange put
it
analytically, so that the expression
(72) dz-Pdx-qdY
by multiplication by a suitable factor M(x,y, z) becomes an exact differen-
tial /N of N(x,y, z) : 0' For this to be so he must have
A*: *, H: -*r, H : -*o

For these equations the integrability conditions (67) impty
aM _ a(Mp), aM : _ a(Yd, : a(Mq).
0x- 0x 0g Az 0x
of a'
40. For arbitrary { it is not generally possible to actually carry out the elimination
The general integral is a concept and amounts to a collection of particular solutions'
4l- Noua. Mdn, de l'Acatt. d.e Berlin, 1772 : CEuuros' 3, 549-75'
534 PARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS r Too-r8OO
If one puts into the last of these three equations the values of 0Ml0x ar..d,
dMlAg from the 6rst t!r,o, one obtains
(73) ?-?-o?+o?:0.
oc ox ' oz 'oz
This is tlre condition (68) for the integrability of (72), a condition known
before, as Lagrange remarls. In (73) q can be taken as the given function Q
of *, g, z, and p so that explicitly the equation becomes
(74) -A,H*u!E* Q - pQ,)ff- o, - PQ,:o.

Lagrange's plan now is to find a solution I : P of this first order equation,
which is ldzaar in the derivatives ofp and whose solution contains an arbitrary
constant a. Having obtained this, he integrates the two equations
(7s) Q@,9, z,!) : 0,
q - ! - P(x,g, z, d) : O,
which represent 0zl0x and 0zl0g as functions of x, y, z, and finds a family of
o' integral surfaces of the original equation (70); that is, he finds the
complete solution. Thus lirr, then, Lagrange has replaced the problem of
solving the nonlinear equation (70) by the problem of solving the linear
equation (74).
In 1779 l-agange gave his method of solving linear first order partial
diferential equations.r2 He considers the equation still called Lagrange's
Iinear equation
(76) Qq R, Pp + :
where P, Q, and R are functions of x, y, and z; the equation is called non-
homogeneous because of the presence of the R term. This equation is inti-
mately related to the homogeneous equation in three independent variables
(77) p!+o!*a9:0.
ox -og oz
What Lagrange shows readily is that if z(r, !, z) : c is a solution of (76),
then.,ir : u(x, g, z) is a solution of (77) and, conversely. Hence the problem
of solving (76) is equivalent to that of solving (77). The equation (77) in
turn is related to the system of ordinary differential equations
dxdudzduOdzR
: :
(78)
V O ? ot -=a*: =P and dx: P'
In fact, iflf: y1*,n, z) and.f: a(*,A, z) are two independent solutions of
(77), then u : h and o : cz are a solution of (78) and conversely, Hence,
if we can find the solutions u : ct and t) : cz of (78), -f : u and,J: z will
be solutions of (77) and, u : c and o : c will be solutions of (76). Moreover,
42. Noua. M,im. dc I'Acad. de Beilin, 1779 : CEuwes,4, 585-634.

FIRST oRDER PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS 535
one can show readily that..f :

{(u, a) where { is an arbitrary function of a
and z also satisfies (77)' Then 4@, o) : c or, since { is arbitrary' $(u' a) : o
is a general solution of (76). Lagrange Save the above scheme in 1779 and
gave a proofin 1785.a3 It is perhaps worth noting incidentally that Euler was
,l".." ih.t the solution of (77) can be reduced to the solution of (78)'
Ifone takes this work on linear equations in connection with the 1772
work on nonlinear equations, one sees that Lagrange had succeeded in
reducing an arbitrary first order equation in x, y, and z to a system of
simultaneous ordinary differential equations. He does not state the result
explicitly but it follows from the above work. Curiously, in l7B5 he had to
soive a p.rticular first order partial differential equation and said it was
impossible with present methods; he had forgotten his earlier (1772) work'
Then Paul Charpit (d. l7B4) in l7B4 presumably combined the methods
for nonlinear and linear equations to reduce any f(x,g, z,P,q):0 to a
system of ordinary differential equations. Lacroix said in 1798 that charpit
had submitted a paper in 1784 (which was not published) in which he
reduced first order partial differential equations to systems of ordinary
differential equations. Jacobi found Lacroix's statement striking and
expressed the wish that Charpit's work be published' But this w'ut never
done and we do not know whether Lacroix's statement is correct. Actually
Lagrange had done the full job and Charpit could have added nothing' The
Lagrange-Charpit, or
-"ihod given in modern texts, called the Lagrange, Lagrange presented in his 1772
Charpit method, is the fusion of the ideas
and l77g papers. It states that to solve the general first order partial differen-
tial equaiion .f(x,!,2,?,9) :0 one must solve the system of ordinary
differential equations (the characteristic equations of;f : 0),
(7e)
ff:r, fl:r,, ff:rr,+t-r,,
!,: -'f' -l"t' !,:-t"-t'o'
The solution is effected by finding any one integral of (79), say u(x,g, z,!,
d : A. One solves this and;t: 0 simultaneously forp and 4 and substitutes
ior p and q in dz : pdx + qdy (see [72]). Then one integrates by the method
used for (65).
Lagrange's method is often called Cauchy's method of characteristics
becrrrse the g.neralization to z variables of the method of arriving at (79)
used by Lagrange and charpit for a differential equation in two independent
variabies p..r"ti. difficulties which were surmounted by Cauchy in IBl9''r
43. Nouo. Mim. de I'Acad. dc Berlin, 1785 : (Euwcs,5' 543-$2'

44. Bull. de la Sociitd Philonalhiqw, |8|9, l0_21; see a|so Excrciccs d, alolysc .l & phgs. m^th.,
2,238-72 : (Euures, (2), 12,272-?09.
536 PARTIAL DIFFERENTTAL EqUATIONS I TOO-r BOO
6. Monge and the Theory of Characteristics

Lagrange worked purely analytically. Gaspard Monge (1746-1818) intro-
duced the language of geometry. His work in partial differential equations
was not as great as that ofEuler, Lagrange, and Legendre, but he started the
movement to interpret the analytic work geometrically and introduced
thereby many fruitful ideas. He saw that just as problems involving curves
led to ordinary differential equations, so problems involving surfaces lead to
partial differential equations. More generally, for Monge geometry and
analysis were one subject, whereas for the other mathematicians of the
century the two branches were distinct, with just points of contact. Monge
began his work in 1770 but did not publish until much later.
It was primarily in the subject of nonlinear first order equations that
Monge not only introduced the geometric interpretation but emphasized
a new concept, that of characteristic curves.4s His ideas on characteristics
and on integrals as envelopes were not understood and were called a meta-
physical principle by his contemporaries, but the theory of characteristics
was to become a very significant theme in later work. Monge developed his
ideas more fully in his lectures and in subsequent publications, notably the
Feuilhs d'analyse appliqwic d la giomitrie (1795). The ideas are best illustrated
by his own example.
Consider the two-parameter family of spheres, all of constant radius l?
and centers anywhere in the Xf-plane. The equation of this family is
(80) (*-o)'+Q-b)'*22:R2.
This equation is the complete integral of the nonlinear first order partial
differential equation
(81) z"(p'+Q2+11 :112,
because (80) contains two arbitrary constants a and, b and clearly satisfies
(Bl). Any subfamily of spheres introduced by letting b : 6@) is a family
of spheres with centers on a curve, the curve S : 6@) in the XI-plane.
The envelope of this one-parameter family of spheres (a tubular surface) is
also a solution of (Bl). This particular solution is obtained by eliminating a
from
(82) (*-o)'+fu-6@))r!22:R2
and the partial derivative of (82) with respect to a, namely,
(83) (x - a) + (y - $(a))g'(a) :0.
For each particular choice of a, equations (82) and (83) represent two
particular surfaces, and therefore the two considered simultaneously repre-
45. Hitt. de l'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1784,85-lt7, t18-92, pub. 1787.
MONGE AND THE TITEORY OF CHARACTERISTICS 537
Figure 22.4
sent a curve called a characteristic curve. This curve is also the curve of
intersection of two " consecutive" members of the subfamily. The set of
characteristic curves fills out the envelope; that is, the envelope touches
each member of the subfamily along a characteristic. The general integral
is the aggregate of surfaces (envelopes of one-parameter families), each
generated by a set of characteristic curves. The envelope of all the solutions
of (80), that is, the singular solution, obtained by eliminating a and D from
(80) and the partial derivatives of (80) with respect to a and b respectively,
isz: tX.
The characteristic curve appears in another way. Consider two sub-
families of spheres whose envelopes are tangential along any one sphere. We
might call such envelopes consecutive envelopes. The curve of intersection
of these two consecutive envelopes is the same characteristic curve on the
sphere as the one obtained by considering consecutive members of either
subfamily. Any one sphere may belong to an infinity of different subfamilies
whose envelopes are all different, and so there will be different characteristic
curves on the same sphere. All are great circles in vertical planes.
Monge gave the analytical form of the differential equations of the
characteristic curves, which amounts to the fact that equations (79) dcter-
mine the characteristic curves of (69). (Monge used total differential equa-
tions to express the equations of the characteristic curves.)
Monge also introduced (1784) the notion of a characteristic cone. At
any point (x,y, z) of space (Fig. 22.a) one may consider a plane whose normal
has the direction numbers 1D, g, - l. For a fixed (r, y, z), the set ofy' and 4
which satisfy
(84) F(x,9, z, p, q) : 0
determines a one-parameter family of planes all passing through (x, y, z).

This set of planes envelopes a cone with vertex at (x,9, z).This is the
characteristic cone or Monge cone at (x,y, z). If we now consider a surface
S whose equation is z : g(x,y), then the surflace has a tangent plane at each
(*,!, r). A necessary and sufficient condition that such a surface be an
integral surface ofF : 0 is that at each point (x,9, z) the tangent plane ofF
5g8 PARTTAL DTTEERET{rIAL EQUATToNS I Too-I8oo
be a tangent plane of the Monge cone at (x,y, z). A curve Con an integral
surface S is called a characteristic curve if at each point ofC the tangent is a
generator of the Monge cone at that point. These characteristic curves are
the same as those Monge deduced from the complete integral illustrated by
(80) and are the solutions of the simultaneous equations (79). He also
points out in a paper of 1802 which he incorporated in his Application de
l'aaolgsc d la giomltric{B (1807) that each integral surface is a locus of char-
acteristic curves and only one characteristic curve Passes through each point
of the integal surface.
The significance of the charactcristic curves lies in the following. If one
chooses a space curve ,r(l), y(l), z(t) (for some interval of t-values) that is not
a characteristic curve, then there isjust one integral surface ofF : 0 that
passcs through this curve; that is, there isjust olie z : g(x, g) such that z(l) :
g(x(t),y (t)) (for the range of i-values). On the other hand, as Monge noted in
lectures of 1806, through any characteristic curve one can pass an infinity
of integral surfaces. Moreover, the infinity of integral surfaces that pass
through the curve arc tangent to each other on that curve.
7. Monge add Nonlbuar Second. Order Equations

In addition to the second order linear equations we have already reviewed,
the eighteenth-century mathcmaticians had occasion to consider more general
linear second order equations in two indepcndent variables and even non-
lincar ones. Thus they studied the linear equation
nu# * u
ffi * rffo, * o* * r# * Fz * G: o,
whcrc l, B, .. .
, G are functions of x and y. This equation is commonly
written as
(85) Ar * Bs +Ct + DP + Eq *Fz* G:0,
where the letters r, s, t, p, znd q have the obvious meanings. Laplace showed
in1773a1 that equation (85) can, by a change of variables, be reduced to
the form
(86) s+a|+bq+cz*g:0,
where a, b, c,and g are functions ofxand,y only, provided that 82 - 4AC *
0, He then solved the equation in terms of an infinite series.
ln his Failhs d'arulgn, Monge considered the nonlinear equation
(87) rtr *.Ss + Tt: V
,16. This is the tidc of thc third cdition of his Fatrilhs d'analya.
47. Hitt. dt f Acad, das Sci., Paris,1773, pub. 1777 (hprcs,9'
= 5-{Il.
MONGE AND NONLINEAR SECOND ORDER EQUATIONS 539
in which rt, S, f, and Zare functions of *,y, z, p, and 4, so that the equation
is linear oniy in the second derivatives r, J, and l' This type of
equation arose
in Lagrangels work on minimal surfaces, that is, surflaces ofleast area bounded
by giien rlpu"" wherein the specific differential equation is (l + q'3)r
".r*"r, Qhap' 24, sec' 4)' Though Monge had
-ipqs +'(l + p2)t:0. (See also (87), in the present work (1795) he
uf..dy dorr" ,o-" work on equation
** ubl" to solve it elegantly by the method we shall sketch'
By using the immediate flacts
(88) 62:pdxqqdg
(Be) dP: rdx + sdY
(e0) dq: sdx + tdy
equation
and eliminating r and I from (87), (89), and (90) he obtained the
(91) s(Rdgz - Sdxdy + Tdxz) - (Rdvdp + Tdxdq - Vdxdi : A'
His argument then was that whenever it is possible to solve simultaneously

(e2) Rdgz-Sdxdg*Tdsz:O
and
(e3) RdydP + Td*dq - Vdxdg:O
then (91) will be satisfied and so will (87)'
dquation (92) is equivalent to two first order equations
(94) dy Wr(x,y, z,p,q) dx:0 and dy - W2(x,y,2,P,9) :0'
-
Equations (BB) and (93), together with either -one of (94), constitute a
.yrt"- of thi". total difie;ential equations in the-five variables x, y, z' p' an'd'
q. Wt .r, these three equations can be solved it is possible to find two
solu-
tions
ur(x,g, z,P,d : q and u2(x,Y, z,P,d : Cz
and then
(e5) ut : 6(uz),
where / is arbitrary, is a first order partial differential equation' The
equation (95) is called an intermediate integral' Its general solution is the
so'lution oi 1421. If,n" other equation in (94) can be used together with
(88)
and (93), we get another function
(e6) u" : $(u).

In this case (95) and (96) can be solved simultaneously for p and q and these
values are substituted in (BB) then this total differential equation can be
;
shall
solved. This at least is the general scheme, though there are details we
540 rARTTAL DIFFERENTTAL EquATroNs I 7oo-r8oo
not take time to cover. Monge's integration of the equation for minimal
surfaces was one of his claims to glory.
For the equation (87) also Monge introduced the theory of characteris-
tics. The total differential equation of the characteristics is (92), that is,
Rdg'-Sdxdg+Tdxz:0.
This equation, which appears in his work as early as l784,a8 defines at each
point of an integral surface two directions that are the characteristic direc-
tions at that point. Through each point on an integral surface there pass two
characteristic curves, along each of which two consecutive integral surf;aces
touch each other.
8. of First Order Partial Diferential Equations

Systems
Systems of partial differential equations arose first in the eighteenth-century
work on fluid dynamics or hydrodynamics. The work on incompressible
fluids, for example, water, was motivated by such practical problems as
designing the hulls of ships to reduce resistance to motion in water and
calculating the tides, the flow of rivers, the flow of water from jets, and the
pressure of water on the sides of a ship. The work on compressible fluids, air
in particular, sought to analyze the action ofair on sails of ships, the design
of windmill vanes, and the propagation of sound' The work we studied
earlier on the propagation of sound was historically an application of the
work on hydrodynamics specialized to waves of small amplitude.
After having treated incompressible fluids in 1752 in a paper entitled
" Principles of the Motion of Fluids," a0 Euler generalized this work in a
paper of 1755, entitled " General Principles of the Motion of Fluids." 50
Here he gave the still-famous equations of fluid flow for perfect (nonviscous)
compressible and incompressible fluids. The fluid is regarded as a continuum
and the particles are mathematical points. He considers the force acting on
a small volume of the fluid subject to the pressure p, density p, and external
forces with components P, Q, and rR per unit mass.
In one of the two approaches to fluid dynamics that Euler created'
known in the literature as the sPatial description, the comPonents z, u, and
ar of the fluid velocity are given at every point in the fluid by
(97) u : u(r,g,z,t), a : t)(x,Y,z't), u : u(*ry, z,t).

Now
' = ou +?au
du +?a, +?at.
og - oz
didx ot
48. Hisl. dc I'Acad. dcs Sci., Paril, 1784' llA-92, pub. 1787.
49. Noui Comm. Acad. Sci Petrop.,6,l756157,27l-311, pub. l76l : Olera, (2), 12, 133-68.
50. Hkr. de I'Acad. dc Berlin, ll, 1755, 274-315, pub. 1757 = O\cra, (2)' 12' 54-91.
FrRST ORDER SYSTEMS 5+r
In time dt, the particle at (x,y, z) will travel a distance z dI in the r-direction,
a dt in the y-direction, and, w dt in the z-direction. Then the actual changes
dx, dy, and dz in the expression for du are given by these quantities, so that
a* : *.u
dx dt + *.a
oy dt + **
02
dt + *aJ
dt
or
du 0u Au ux- 0u 0u
(eB)
a : u -;-
oxI0--o! * oz * at'
and there are the corresponding expressions for duldt and dwldt. These
quantities give what is called now the convective rate ofchange of the velocity
at (rc, g, z) or the convective acceleration. By calculating the forces acting
on the particle at (x, g, z) and applying Newton's second law, Euler obtains
the system of differential equations
lAp du
'^ pAx At
(ee) , -iff:#
- IAP dw
^ - iaz:7i'
Euler also generalized d'Alembert's differential equation of continuity
(45) and obtained for compressible flow the equation
(100)
ap . a$u) , aGu) ,a(pu) _n
-:-f.....:--l-_:-.r--;--v.
ot ox oll oz
There are four equations and five unknowns, but the pressuref as a function
of the density, the equation of state, must be specified.
In the 1755 paper Euler says, "And if it is not permitted to us to Pene-
trate to a complete knowledge concerning the motion of fluids, it is not to
mechanics, or to the insufficiency of the known principles of motion, that
we must attribute the cause. It is analysis itself which abandons us here,
since all the theory of the motion of fluids has just been reduced to the solu-
tion of analytic formulas." Unfortunately analysis was still too weak to do
much with these equations. He then proceeds to discuss some special solu-
tions. He also wrote bther papers on the subject and dealt with the resistance
encountered by ships and ship propulsion. Euler's equations are not the
final ones for hydrodynamics. He neglected viscosity, which was introduced
seventy years later by Navier and Stokes (Chap. 28, sec. 7).
Lagrange, too, worked on fluid motion. In the first edition of his
Mhanique analgtique, which contains some of the work, he gave Euler's
basic equations and generalized them. Here he gave credit to d'Alembert but
none to Euler. He too says the equations of fluid motion are too difficult to
be handled by analysis. Only the cases of infinitely small movements are
susceptible of rigorous calculation'
In the area of systems of partial differential equations, the equations of
hydrodynamics were, in the eighteenth century, the main inspiration for
mathematical research on this subject. Actually the eighteenth century
accomplished little in the solution of systems.
9. Tlu of the Matlumatical Subject

Rise
Up to 1765 partial differential equations appeared only in the solution of
physical problems. The first paper devoted to purely mathematical work on
partial differential equations is by Euler: " Recherches sur I'int6gration de
ooe;-"
rdquation (#) : *(48*) * Shortlv therearter Euler pub-
lished a treatise on the subject in the third volume of llris Institutiones Calculi
Inttgralis.62
Before d'Alembert's work of 1747 on the vibrating string, partial
differential equations were known as equations ofcondition arrd only special
solutions were sought. After this work and d'Alembert's book on the general
causes of winds (1746), the mathematicians realized the difference between
special and general solutions. However, once aware of this distinction, they
seemed to believe that general solutions would be more important. In the
first volume of his Micanique ctlestz (1799), Laplace still complained that the
potential equation in spherical coordinates could not be integrated in general
form. Appreciation of the fact that general solutions such as Euler and
d'Alembert obtained for the vibrating string were not as useful as particular
ones satisfying initial and boundary conditions was not attained in that
century.
The mathematicians did realize that partial differential equations
involved no new operational techniques but differed from ordinary difieren-
tial equations in that arbitrary functions might appear in the solution.
These they expected to determine by reducing partial differential equations
to ordinary ones. Laplace (1773) and Lagrange (1784) say clearly that they
regard a partial diflerential equation as integrated when it is reduced to a
problem of ordinary differential equations. An alternative, such as Daniel
Bernoulli used for the wave equation and Laplace for the potential equation,
was to seek expansions in series of special functions.
The major achievement of the eighteenth-century work on partial
differential equations was to reveal their importance for problems of elasticity,
51. Misc. Taur.,321762/65,60-91, pub. 1766 = Olua, (l)' 23,47-73.
52. 1770 :Olera, (l),l!.
BIBLIOCRAPHY 543
hydrodynamics, and gravitational attraction. Except in the case oflagrange's

work on first order equations, no broad methods were developed, nor were
the potentialities in the method ofexpansion in special functions appreciated.
The eflorts were directed to solving the special equations that arose in
physical problems. The theory ofthe solution of partial diflerential equations
remained to be fashioned and the subject as a whole was still in its infancy.
BibliographE
Burkhardt, H.: "Entwicklungen nach oscillirenden Funktionen und Integration
der Differentialgleichungen der mathematischen Physik," Jahres. dcr Dcat.
Math.-Verein,, 10, 1908, l-1804.
Burkhardt, H., and W. Franz Meyer: " Potentialtheorie," Emy*. der Malh. Wiss.,
B. G. Teubner, 1899-1916, 2, 1'7b,464-503.
Cantor, Moritz z Vorhsungcn frbu Gcschichle tler Mathcmatik, B. G. Teubner, 1898
and 1924; Johruon Reprint Corp., 1965, Vol' 3, 858-78, Yol.4'87T1047.
Euler, Leonard: Opta Omnia, Orell Fiissli, (l), Vols. 13 (1914) and 23 (1938); (2),
Vols. I0, ll, 12, and 13 (1947-55).
Lagrange, Joseph-Louis: (Euorcs, Gauthier'Villars, 1868-70, relevant papers in
Vols. 1, 3, 4, 5.
Laplace, Pierre-Simon : CEuans compl)tcs, Gauthier-Villars, 1893-94, rclevant
papers in Vols' 9 and 10.
Montucla, J. F.: Histoirc des mathimatiqucs (1802), Albert Blanchard (reprint),
1960, Vol. 3, pp. 342-52.
Langer, Rudolph E.: "Fourier Series: The Genesis aad Evolution of a Theory,"
Amcr. Marh. Monthlg,54, No' 7, Part 2, 1947.
Taton, Rend: L'(Euare scbntifqu de Monge, Presses Universitaires de France, 1951.
Todhunter, lsaac: A History of ttu Mathzmatiral Theorbs of Attraction and tlu Figttc of
tlu Earth (1873), Dover (reprint), 1962.
Truesdell, Clifford E.: Introduction to Izortudi Eulai Opcra Omnia Vol. X ct XI
Serfui Suundae, in Euler, Opaa Omnia, (2), I l, Part 2, Orell Fiissli' 1960.
Edito/ s Intro&utraz in Euler, Opcra Omnia, (2), Vol. 12, Orell Fiissli, 1954'
Editor's Introduetioz in Euler, Opcra Omnia, (2), Vol. 13, Orcll Fiilsli, 1956'
23
Analytic and Differential Geometry
Geometry may sometimes appear to take the lead over
analysis but in fact Precedes it only as a servant goes before
the master to clear the path and light him on his rvay.
JAMES JOSEPH SYLVESTER
l. Introduction
The exploration of physical problems led inevitably to the search for greater
knowledge of curves and surfaces, because the paths of moving objects are
curves and the objects themselves are three-dimensional bodies bounded
by surfaces. The mathematicians, already enthusiastic about the method of
coordinate geometry and the power of the calculus, approached geometrical
problems with these two major tools. The impressive results of the century
were obtained in the already established area of coordinate geometry and
the new field created by applying the calculus to geometrical problems,
namely, differential geometry.
2. Basic Analytic Geomttry

Two-dimensional analytic geometry was extensively explored in the eight-
eenth century, The improvements in elementary plane analytics are readily
summarized. Whereas Newton and James Bernoulli had introduced and
used what are essentially polar coordinates for special curves (Chap. 15,
sec. 5),Jacob Hermann in 1729 not only proclaimed their general usefulness,
but applied them freely to study curves. He also gave the transformation
from rectangular to polar coordinates. Strictly Hermann used as variables
p, cos 0, sin d, which he designated by z, n, and rn. Euler extended the use
ol polar coordinates and used trigonometric notation explicitly; with him
the system is practically modern.
Though some seventeenth-century men-for example, Jan de Witt
544
BASIC ANALYTIC GEOMETRY 545
(1625-72) in his Elementa Curoarum Linearum ( 1659)--{id reduce some second

degree equations in r and y to standard forms, James Stirling, in his Lineae
Tertii Ordinis Neutonianu ( 1717), reduced the general second degree equation
in x and y to the several standard forms.
In his Introductio (17 48) Euler introduced the parametric representation
of curves, wherein x and y are expressed in terms of a third variable. In this
f,amous text Euler treated plane coordinate geometry systematically.
The suggestion of three-dimensional coordinate geometry can be found,
as we know, in the work of Fermat, Descartes, and La Hire. The actual
development was the work of the eighteenth century. Though some of the
early work, Pitot's and Clairaut's for example, is tied up with the development
of differential geometry, we shall consider only coordinate geometry ProPer
at this point.
The first task was the improvement of La Hire's suggestion of a three-
dimensional coordinate system. John Bernoulli, in a letter to Leibniz of
1715, introduced the three coordinate planes we use today. Through contri-
butions too detailed to warrant space here, Antoine Parent (1666-1716),
John Bernoulli, Clairaut, and Jacob Hermann clarified the notion that a
surface can be represented by an equation in three coordinates. Clairaut,
in his book Rccherche sur les courbes d double courburc (Research on the Curves
of Double Curvature, 1731), not only gave the equations of some surfaces
but made clear that two such equations are needed to describe a curve in
space. He also saw that certain combinations ofthe equations of two surfaces
passing through a curve, the sum for example, give the equation of another
surface passing through the curve' Using this fact, he explains how one can
obtain the equations of the projections of these curves or, equivalently, the
equations of the cylinders perpendicular to the planes of projection.
The quadric surfaces, e.g. sphere, cylinder, Paraboloid, hyperboloid
of two sheets, and ellipsoid, were of course known geometrically before 1700;
in flact, some of them appear in Archimedes' work. Clairaut in his book of
1731 gave the equations of some of these surfaces' He also showed that an
equation that is homogeneous in x,y, and z (all terms are ofthe same degree)
represents a cone with vertex at the origin. To this result Jacob flermann,
in a paper ol 1732,1 added that the equation tc' + y' : f(z) is a surfrce of
revolution about the z-axis. Both Clairaut and Hermann were primarily
concerned with the shape of the earth, which by their time was believed
to be some form of ellipsoid.
Though Euler had done some earlier work on the equations of surfaces,
it is in Chapter 5 of the Appendix to the second volume of his Introduttio
(1748)2 that he systematically takes up three-dimensional coordinate
l. Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,6, 1732133,36-67, pub. 1738.

2. OPera, (l),9.
546 ANALYTIC AND DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY I7O(FI8OO
Line of nodes
gcomctry. Hc presents much of what had already been done and then
studies thc general s€cond degree equation in three variables
(l) af + by2 + cz2 + dxg + cxz+fyz+ Cx + lry * kz: l.
IIe now seels to use change of axes to reduce this equation to the forms that
result from having the principal axes of the quadric surfaces represented by
( I ) as the coordinate axes. He introduces the transformation from the
{yz-system to the x'y'z'-system, whose equations are expressed (Fig. 23.1)

in terms of the angles $, $, and 0. The angle { is measured in the ry-plane
from the r-axis to the line of nodes, which is the line in which the x'y'-plane
cuts the r,3r-plane. The angle ry' is measured in the *'y'-plane and locates x'
with respect to the line of nodes. The angle shown is d. Then the equations
of transformation, including translation, are
* : to * *'(cos lcos{ - cos Osin /sin {)
- y'(cos ry' { + cos d sin / sin
sin {) * z'sin d sin {
(2) y :yo + r'(sin $ cos$ * cos 0cos lsin /)
- y'(sin r/ sin { - cos d cos r/ sin /) - z'sin 0 sin {
z:zo* *'sin dsin,l * y'siltr dcos{ * z' cos 0.
Euler uses this transformation to reduce (l) to canonical forms and obtains
six distinct cases: cone, cylinder, ellipsoid, hyperboloid of one and two
shees, hyperbolic paraboloid (which he discovered), and parabolic cylinder.
Like Descartes, Euler maintained that classification by the degree of the
equation was the correct principle; Euler's reason was that the degree is
invariant under linear transformation.
Aftcr continuing work on this problem of change of axes, he wrote
another paper,s in which he considers the transformation that will carry
3. Novi Comm. Acad. Sci. Petro!., 15, 1770,75-106' pub. l77l : Ofuila, (l)' 6, 287-315.
HIGHER PLANE CURVES 547
,c2+ gz * zs into x,2 * y'2 + z'2. Here he-and Lagrange a little later,
in a paper on the attraction of spheroids a--gave the symmetric form for
t}te rotation of axes, the homogeneous linear orthogonal transformation
x: \x, * Py, + vz,
!:i'x'*1t'g'+v'z'
z: \, x, + lt'y, + v"z',
where
|: + .tr,r : I
.u ),e lp + )r,p, * l, t", : O
p2 +p,2*p,,: l lyatrr,*)\,y":0
uzay,2 !yD2:l pu * 1t'v' t 1t'v' :0.
The l, p, and u, unprimed and primed, are of course direction cosines in

today's terminology.
Gaspard Monge's writings contain a Sreat deal of three-dimensional
analytic geometry. His outstanding contribution to analytic geometry as
such is to be found in the paper of 1802 written with his pupil Jean-Nicolas-
Pierre Hachette (1769-1834), "Application de l'alglbre I la g€om6trie'"
6
The authors show that every plane section of a second degree surface is a
second degree curve, and that parallel planes cut out similar and similarly
placed curves. These results parallel Archimedes' geometric theorems. The
authors also show that the hyperboloid of one sheet and the hyperbolic
paraboloid are ruled surfaces, that is, each can be generated in two different
ways by the motion of a line or each surfiace is formed by two systems of
lines. The result on the one-sheeted hyperboloid was known by 1669 to
Christopher Wren, who said that this figure could be Senerated by revolving
a line about another not in the same plane. With the work of Euler, Lagrange,
and Monge, analytic geometry became an independent and full-fledged
branch of mathematics.
3. Higher Plane Curaes

The analytic geometry described thus far was devoted to curves and surfaces
of the first and second degree. It was of course natural to investigate the
curves olequations ofhigher degree. In fact, Descartes had already discussed
such equations and their curves somewhat. The study of curves of degree
higher than two became known as the theory of higher plane curves, though
it is part of coordinate geometry. The curves studied in the eighteenth
century were algebraic; that is, their equations are given by f(x,$ : A
wherelfis a polynomial in * andy. The degree or order is the highest degree
of the terms.
4. Nouu. Mdm. dc t'Acad. dc Berlin, 1773,85-l2O : CEuor.s, 3, 619-58.
5. Jour. de l'Ecole ll
Polg., cahicr, 1802, 14$-69.
s+B ANALYTIC AND DIFFERENTIAL CEOMETR Y r TOO-r Boo
t \t
\/
O) t a\ ).(
Figure 23.2
The first extensive study of higher plane curves was made by Newton.
Impressed by Descartes's plan to classify curves according to the degree of
their equations and then to study systematically each degree by methods
suited to that degree, Newton undertook to study third degree curves. This
work appeared in his Enumcratio Linearum Tertii Ordinis, which was published
in 1704 as an appendix to the English edition of his Opticks but had been
composed by 1676. Though the use of negative *- and y-values appears in
works of La Hire and Wallis, Newton not only uses two axes and negative
x- and y-values but plots in all four quadrants.
Newton showed how all curves comprised by the general third degree
equation
(3) axs + bxzy a cxyz t dgs + ex2 + fxg + gg2 + htc +jy + k:0
can, by a change of axes, be reduced to one of the following four forms:
(a) rgz * e! : a# + bx2 + cx + d
(b) x!:ax,+bx2+cx+d
(c) !2:ax'+bx2+cx*d
(d) !:ax'+bxz+cx+d.
The third class, which Newton called diverging parabolas, contains five
species of curves whose types are shown in Figure 23.2, The species are
distinguished by the nature of the roots of the cubic right-hand member,
as follows: all real and distinct; two roots complex; all real but two equal
and the double root greater or less than the simple root; and all three equal.
Newton affirmed that every cubic curve can be obtained by projection of
one of these five types from a point and then by a section of the projection.
Newton gave no proofs of many of the assertions in his Enumeratio. ln
his Lineae, James Stirling proved or reproved in other ways most of the
assertions but not the projection theorem, which Clairaut6 and Frangois
Nicole ( 1683-1 758) ? proved. Also, whereas Newton recognized seventy-two
6. Mim, de l'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1731, +90-93, pub. 1733.
7. Min. de I'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1731, 49.t-510, pub. 1733.
HIGHER PLANE CURVES 549
species' of third degree curves, Stirling added four more and abb6 Jean-Paul
de Gua de Malves, in a little book of 1740 entitled Usage d.e l'analgse de
Descartts pour dicouarir sans Ie secours tlu calcul difircntial . . . , added two more'
Newton's work on third degree curves stimulated much other work on
higher plane curves. The topic of classifying third and fourth degree curves
in accordance with one or another principle continued to interest mathema-
ticians of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The number of classes
found varied with the methods of classification.
As is evident from the figures of Newton's fi.ve species of cubic curves'
the curves of higher-degree equations exhibit many peculiarities not found
in first and second degree curves. The elementary peculiarities, called
singular points, are inflection points and multiple points. Before proceeding,
let us see what some of them look like.
Inflection points are familiar from the calculus. A point at which there
are two or more tangents which may coincide, is called a multiple point'
At such a point two or more branches ofthe curve intersect. If two branches
intersect at the multiple point, it is called a double point. If three branches
intersect then the point is called a triple point, and so on.
If we take the equation of an algebraic curve
"f(*,v)
: o,
;f being a polynomial in x andy, we can by a translation always remove the
constant term. If this is done and if there are first degree terms in;f, say
ap ! b1y, then arx 'l bry :0 gives the equation of the tangent to the
curve at the origin. The origin is not in this case a multiple point. If there
are no first degree terms, arld if a2x2 a b2xy I cry2 ate the second degree
terms, then several cases arise. The equation arxz + b2xg * czyz :0 lllay
represent two distinct lines. These lines are tangents at the origin (this can
be proven), and since there are two distinct tangents the origin is a double
point; it is called a node. Thus the equation of the lemniscate (Fig. 23.3) is
(4) o'(!' - x') + (!" f x2)e : S
and the second degree terms yield U2 - xz : 0. Then g : x and ! : -x
are the equations of the tangents. Likewise, the folium of Descartes (Fig'
23.4) has the equation
(5) f +ys:3a1,,
and the tangents at the origin, which is a node, are given by r : 0 and
v:0.
When the two tangent lines are coincident, the single line is considered
as a double tangent and the two branches of the curve touch each other
at the point of tangency, which is called a cusp. (Sometimes cusps are
550
Lemnircatc
Figurc 23.3, Lemnircatc Figure 23.4. Folium of Descartes
included zrmong the double points.) Thus the semicubical parabola (Fig.
23.5)
(6) ry,z:f
has a cuspat the origin, and thc equation of the two coincident tangents
foyr : 0. On the curve (y - i)' : f (Fig. 23.6) the origin is a cusp.
Here both branches lie on the same side of the double tangent, which is
I : 0. De Gua in his Usage had, tried to show that this type of cusp could
not occur, but Euler 8 gave many examples, A cusp is also called a stationary
point or point of retrogression because a point moving along the curve
must come to rest before continuing its motion at a cusP.
When the two tangent lines are imaginary, the double point is called a
conjugate point. Thc coordinates of the point satisfy the equation of the
curve but the point is isolated from the rest of the curve. Thus the curve
(Fig. 23.7) of gz : *(2x - l) has a conjugate Point at the origin. The
equation of the double tangent there is !2 : -x2 and the tangents are
imagrnary.
Figure 23.5. Semicubical parabola Figure 23.6
8. Mdm. dc l'Acod. dc Balh,5, l7+9,203-21, pub. l75l : Olcra, (l),27,236-52.

HIGHER. PLANE CURVES 55I
The curve of ays - 3ax2g : *a (Fig. 23.8) has a triple point at thc
origin. The equation of the three tangents is
aYs-3a*2Y:O
ory:0 andy: +xnft,.
The curve of aga - ax'y' : xE (Fig. 23.9) has a quadruple Point at
the origin. The origin is a combination of a node and a cusp. The tangents
arey :0,9 : O,g : +x.
Curves of the third degree (order) may have a double point (which
may be a cusp) but no other multiple point. There are of coursc cubics with
no double point.
To return to the history proper, many of these special or singular
points on curves were studied by Leibniz and his sucoesson. The analytical
conditions for such points, such as that f : 0 at an inflection point and
that 3i is indeterminate at a dotrble point, werc known wen to the foundcrs
of the calculus.
Clairaut in the l73l book referred to above assumed that a third dcgrec
curve cannot have more than three real inflection points aud must have at
least one. De Gua in Usagc proved that if a third degree curve has three
real inflection points, a line through two of thern passes through the third
Figure 23.9
552 ANALYTTC AND DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY rTOO-r8OO
one. This theorem is often credited to Maclaurin. De Gua also investigated

double points and gave the condition that rf J@,9) : 0 is the equation of
the curve, then ;f, and 1f, must be 0 at a double point. A ,t-fold point is
characterized by the vanishing ofall partial derivatives through the (,t - I )st
order. He showed that the singularities are compounded of cusps, ordinary
points, and points of inflection. In addition, de Gua treated middle points
of curves, the form of branches extending to infinity, and properties of such
branches.
Maclaurin in his Geornehia Organica (1720),written when he was nineteen,
proved that the maximum number of double points of an irreducible curve
of the ath degree is (n - L)(n - 2)12. For this purpose he counted a ,t-fold
point as fr(* - l)/2 double points. He also gave upper bounds for the number
of higher multiple points of each kind. He then introduced the notion of
the deficiency (later called genus) of an algebraic curve as the maximum
possible number of double points minus the actual number. Among curves
those of deficiency 0 or possessing the maximum possible number of double
points received a great deal ofattention. Such curves are also called rational
or unicursal. Geometrically a unicursal curve may be traversed by the
continuous motion of a moving point (which may, however, pass through
the point at infinity). Thus the conics, including the hyperbola, are unicursal
curves.
In his Mcthod of Fluxitns Newton gave a method, commonly referred to
as Newton's diagram or Newton's parallelogram, for determining series
representations ofthe various branches ofa curve at a multiple point (Chap.
20, sec. 2). De Gua in Usage replaced the Newton parallelogram by a
tioryh algibriqac. Then if the origin is a singular point, for small * the
equation of an algebraic curve breaks down into factors of the form y^ - Axo,
where m is positive integral and z integral. The branches of the curve are
given by those factors for which z is also positive. Euler noted (1749) that
de Gua had neglected imaginary branches.
Gabriel Cramer (1704-52), in his Introduction d l'analyse dts lignes courbes
algibriqucs (1750), also tackled the expansion ofy in terms of* when y and .r
are given in an implicit function, that is,f (x,y) : 0, in order to determine
a series expression for each branch of the curve, particularly the branches
that extend to infinity. He treated g as arl ascending and as a descending
series of powers of x. Like de Gua he used the triangle in place of Newton's
parallelogram, and like others he neglected imaginary branches of the
curves,
The conclusion that resulted from the work ofobtaining series expansions
for each branch of a curve issuing from a multiple point was drawn much
later by Victor Puiseux (1820-83) s and is known as Puiseux's theorem:
9. Joar de Math., 13, 1850, 365-480.

HIGHER PLANE CURVES 5s3
The total neighborhood of a point (*0, ys) of an algebraic plane curve can
be expressed by a finite number of developments
(7) U -lo: a1(x - xo)qttoo I a2(x - rco)cztqo +"'.
These developments convergein some interval about ro and all the 4, have
no common factors. The points given by each development are called a
branch of the algebraic curve.
The intersections of a curve and line and of two curves is another topic
that received a great deal of attention. Stirling, in lrris Lineae of 1717, showed
that an algebraic curve of the zth degree (in x and, g) is determined by
n(n + 3) 12 of its points because it has that number of essential coefficients'
He also asserted that any two parallel lines cut a given curve in the same
number of points, real or imaginary, and he showed that the number of
branches of a curve that extend to infinity is even. Maclaurin's work, Geometria
Organica, founded the theory of intersections of higher plane curves' He
generalized on results for special cases and on this basis concluded that an
equation of the mth degree and one of the zth degree intersect in mz points'
In 1748 Euler and Cramer sought to prove this result, but neither gave
a correct proof. Eulerlo relied upon an argument by analogy; realizing
that his argument was not complete, he said one should apply the method
to particular examples. Cramer's " proof" in his book of 1750 relied entirely
on examples and was certainly not acceptable. Both men took into account
points of intersection with imaginary coordinates and infinitely distant
points and noted that the number zzz will be attained only if both
"o*-o,
types of points are included and if any factor, such as at * Dy, common
to both curves is excluded. Ilowever, both faited to assign the proper multi-
plicity to several types of intersections. ln 1764 Etienne Bezout (173G43)
gave a better proof of the theorem, but this was also incomplete in the count
of the multiplicity assigned to points at infinity and multiple Points' The
proper count of the multiplicity was settled by Georgcs-Henri Halphen
(1844-89) in 1873.11
In his book of 1750 Cramer took up a paradox noted by Maclaurin in
his Geometria concerning the number of points common to two curves' A
curve ofdegree z is determined by n(n + 3)/2 points. Two rth degree curves
meet in z2 points. Now if z is 3, the curve should, by the first statement, be
determined by 9 points. But since two third degree curves meet in 9 points,
these 9 points do not determine a unique third degree curve. A similar
paradox arises when z :4. Cramer's explanation of the paradox, now
iefe.red to as his, was that the z2 equations that determine the z3 points
of intersection are not independent. All cubics that Pass through 8 fixed
lO. Mdn. tlc I'Acad. tle Berlin,4, l7+8,234-48 = Oierd, (l), 26' 46-59'
ll. Bull. Soc. Math. de Frarce, l, 1873, 13G48;2, 1873,34-52;3, 1875,76-92: (Euarcs,
1, 98-157, 17 l-93, 337-57.

554 ANALYTTC AND DTFFERENTTAL GEOMETRY I TOO-IBOO
points on a given cubic must pass through the same ninth fixed point. That
is, the ninth point is dependent on the first B. Euler gave the same explanation
in 1748.13
In 1756 Matthieu B. Goudin (1734-1917) and Achille-Pierre Dionis
du Sdjour (1734-94) wrote the Traitl dts courbcs algCbriquer. Its new features
are that a curve oforder (degree) z cannot have more than n(n - l) tangents
with a given direction, nor more than z asymptotes. As had Maclaurin,
they pointed out that an asymptote cannot cut the curve in more than
a - 2 points.
The two best eighteenth-century compendia of results on higher plane
curyes are the second volume of Euler's Infioductia (1748) and Cramer's
Lignes curbcs algibrigras. The latter book has a unity ofviewpoint, is excellently
set forth, and contains good examples. The work was often cited, even to
the poiirt of crediting Cramer with some results that were not original with
him.
4. Tlu Bcginnings of Dffaential Geometry

Differential geometry was initiated while analytic geometry was being
cxtended, and the two developments were often intertwined. Interest in the
theory of algebraic curves waned during the latter Part of the eighteenth
century, and differential geometry became more important as far as geometry
was concerned. This subject is the study of those properties of curves and
surfaces that vary from point to point and therefore can be grasped only with
the techniques of the calculus. The term " differential geometry " was first
used by Luigi Bian'chi (1856-1928) in 1894.
To a large extent, differential geometry was a natural outgrowth of
problems of the calculus itself. Consideration of normals to curves, points of
inflection, and curvature is actually the differential geometry of plane
curves. However, many new problems of the late seventeenth and early
eighteenth centuries, more knowledge about the curvature of plane and
space curves, envelopes of families of curves, geodesics on surfaces, the study
of rays of light and of wave surfaces of light, dynamical problems of motion
along curves and constraints posed by surfaces, and, above all, map-making
led to questions about curves and surfaces I it became evident that the
calculus must be applied.
The eighteenth- and even early nineteenth-century workers in differential
geometry used geometrical arguments along with analytic ones, although
the latter dominated the picture. The analysis was still crude. An infinitesimal
or differential of an independent variable was regarded as an extremely
small constant. No real distinction was drawn between the increment of a
12. Mhn. dc I'Acad. dc Bnlin,4, l7+8,219-33, pub. 1750 : OPcra, (l), 26' 33-45.
PLANE CURVES 555
Figure 23.10
dependent variable and the differential. Differentials of higher orders were

considered, but all were regarded as small and freely neglected. The mathe-
maticians spoke of adjacent or next points on a curve as though there were
no points between two adjacent points if the distance between two was
sufficiently small; thus a tangent to a curve connected a point with the
next one.
5. Plane Cumes
The first applications of the calculus to curves dealt with plane curves.
Some of the concepts subsequently treated by the calculus were introduced
by Christian Huygens, who used purely geometrical methods. His work
in this direction was motivated by his interest in light and in the design
of pendulum clocks. In 1673, in the third chapter of }:ris Horohgium Oscilla-
torium, he introduced the involute ofa plane curve C. Imagine a cord wraPped
around C from P, to the right (Fig. 23. l0). The end at P1 on C is held fixed
and the other unwound while the cord is kept taut. The locus C' of the free
end is an involute of C. Huygens proved that at the free end the cord is
perpendicular to the locus C'. F,ach point of the cord also describes an
involute; thus C" is also an involute, and Huygens proved that the involutes
cannot touch one another. Since the cord is tangent to C at the Point where
it just leaves C, it follows that every orthogonal trajectory of the family of
tangents to a curve is an involute of the curve'
Huygens then treated the evolute of a plane curve. Given a fixed
normal at a point P on a curve, as an adjacent normal moves toward it
the point of intersection of the two normals attains a limiting position on
the fixed normal, which is called the center of curvature of the curve at P-
The distance from the point on the curve along the fixed normal to the
limiting position was shown by Huygens to be (in modern notation)
556 ANALYTIC AND DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY ITOO_IBOO
Figure 23.1 I
This length is the radius of the curvature of the curve at P. The locus of
the centers of curvature, one on each normal, is called the evolute of the
original curve. Thus the curve C above is the evolute of any one of its
involutes. In this work Huygens proved that the evolute of a cycloid is a
cycloid or, more precisely, the evolute of the left half of the lower cycloid
in Figure 23.11 is the right half of the upper cycloid. This theorem was
proved analytically by Euler in l764.to The significance of the cycloid lor
Huygens's work on pendulum clocls is that a pendulum bob swinging
along a cycloidal arc takes exactly the same time to complete swings of
large and of small amplitude. For this reason the cycloid is called the
tautochrone.
Newton, too, in his Gcomctria Analytica (published in I 736 though most
of it was written by 1671) introduces the center of curvature as the limiting
point of intersection of a normal at P with an adjacent normal. He then
states that the circle with center at the center of curvature and radius equal
to the radius of curvature is the circle of closest contact with the curve at P;
that is, no other circle tangent to the curve at P can come between the
curve and the circle of closest contact. This circle of closest contact is called
the osculating circle, the term " osculating " having been used by Leibniz
in a paper of l686.1a The curvature of this circle is the reciprocal of its
radius and is the curvature of the curve at P. Newton also gave the formula
for the curvature and calculated the curvature of several curves, including
the cycloid. He noted that at a point ofinflection a curve has zero curvature.
These results duplicate those of Huygens, but probably Newton wished to
show that he could use analytical methods to establish them.
In 169l John Bernoulli took up the subject ofplane curves and produced
some new results on envelopes. The caustic of a family of light rays, that is,
the envelope of the family, had been introduced by Tschirnhausen in I682.
In the Acta Eruditorum of 1692 Bernoulli obtained the equations of some
caustics, for example, the caustic of rays reflected from a spherical mirror
when a beam of parallel rays strikes it.ls Then he tackled the problem posed
13. Noui Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop., 10, 176+, l?9-98, pub. 1766 = Opera, (l),27, 38+-+00.
14. Acta Erud., 1686, 289-92 : Math, Schrrfkn, T , 326-29.
15. OPera, l, 52-59.
SPACE CURVES 55/
to him by Fatio de Duillier, to find the envelope of the family of parabolas
that are the paths of cannon balls fired from a cannon with the same initial
velocity but at various angles ofelevation. Bernoulli showed that the envelope
is a parabola with focus at the gun. This result had already been established
geometrically by Torricelli. ln the Acta Eruditorum of 1692 and 169416
Leibniz gave the general method of finding the envelope of a family of
curves. If the family is given by (in our notation) f (x, y, ,) : 0, where c is
the parameter of the family, the method calls for eliminating a between
-f : 0 and, AflAa : 0. L'Hospital's text, L'Analyse d'es itfiniment pelils (1696),
helped to perfect and spread the theory of plane curves.
6. Space Curues
Clairaut launched the theory of space curves, the first major development
in three-dimensional differential geometry. Alexis-Claude Clairaut ( I 713-65)
was precocious. At the age of twelve he had already written a good work on
curves. In I 731 he published Recherche sur les courbes d doublc courbure, which
was written in 1729 when he was but sixteen. In this book he treated the
analytics of surfaces and space curves (sec. 2). Another paper by Clairaut
led to his election to the Paris Academy of Sciences at the unprecedented
age of seventeen. In 1743 he produced his classic work on the shape of the
earth. Here he treated in more complete form than Newton or Maclaurin
the shape a rotating body such as the earth assumes under the mutual
gravitational attraction of its parts. He also worked on the problem of
three bodies, primarily to study the moon's motion (Chap. 21, sec. 7), and
wrote several papers on it, one of which won a prize from the St. Petersburg
Academy in 1750. In 1763 he published his Thiorie de la lune. Clairaut had
great personal charm and was a figure in Paris society.
In his I 731 work he treated analytically fundamental problems of
curves in space. He called space curves " curves of double curvature "
because, following Descartes, he considered their projections on two PerPen-
dicular planes. The space curve then partakes of the curvatures of the two
curves on the planes. Geometrically he thought of a space curve ,rs the
intersection ol two surfaces; analytically the equation of each surface was
expressed as an equation in three variables (sec. 2). Clairaut then studied
tangents to curves of double curvature. fle saw that a sPace curve can have
an infinity of normals located in a plane perpendicular to the tangent. The
expressions for the arc length ofa space curve and the quadrature of certain
areas on surfaces are also due to him.
Though Clairaut had taken a few steps in the theory of space curves,
very little had been done in this subject or in the theory ol surfaces by 1750.
16. Page 3l l; see also Math. Schriften,2, 166; 3,967,969.

558 ANALYTTC AND DTFFERENTTAL GEOMETRY rTOO-r8OO
This is reflected in Euler's fttro d.uctio of 1748, where he presented the differen-
tial geometry of planar and spatial figures. The first was rather complete,
but thc second was scanty.
The next major step in the differential geometry of space curyes was
taken by Euler. A great deal of his work in differential geometry was moti-
vated by his use of curves and surfaces in mechanics. flis Mechanica ( I 736),17
written when he was twenty-nine, is a major contribution to the analytical
foundation of mechanics. He gave another treatment of the subject in his
Tluoria Motus Cor\orun Solidorum seu Rigidorum (1765).18 In this book he
derived the currently used polar coordinate formulas for the radial and
normal components of acceleration of a particle moving along a plane
cuwe, namely,
dzr td^2
q:4iz d20 zVV'
4e: r77 _rLd|.
-'\a) ' +
He started to write on the theory ofspace curves in 1774. The particular

problem that very likely motivated Euler to take up this theory was the
study of the skew elastica, that is, the form assumed by an initially straight
band when, under pressure at the ends, it is bent and twisted into the shape
of a skew curve. To treat this problem he introduced some new concepts
in l774.Ls He then gave a full treatment of the theory of skew curves in a
paper presented in I 775.20
Euler represented space curves by the parametric equations .r : r(r),
! S$), z : z(s), where s is arc length, and like other writers of the
:
eighteenth century he used spherical trigonometry to carry out the analysis.
From the parametric equations he has
dx : ?ds, dg : qds, dz:rds,

where y', q, and, r are direction cosines, varying from point to point and,
of course, with p2 + qz + 12 : l The quantity ds, the differential of the
independent variable, he regarded as a constant.
To study the properties ofthe curve he introduced the spherical indica-
trix. Around any point (x,y, z) of a curve Euler describes a sphere of radius
l. The spherical indicatrix may be defined as the locus on the unit sphere of
the points whose position vectors emanating from the center O are equal
to the unit tangent at (x,y, z) and the unit tangents at neighboring points.
Thus the two radii in Figure 23.12 represent a unit tangent at (x,y, z) and
at a neighboring point of the curve. Let ds' be the arc or the angle between
17. Opcra, (2), I and 2.

18. Opcra, (2), 3 and 4.
19. Noui Comn. Acad. Sci. Petrop., 19, 1774,34U70, pub. 1775:Opera, (2), ll, t58-79.
20. Acto Acatl. Sci. Potto!., l, 1782, 19-57, pub. 1786: O?erq (l),28,348-Bl.
SPACE CURVES 559
Figure 23.12
the two neighboring tangents of the two points that are ds apart along the
curve. Euler's definition of the radius of curvature of the curve is
ds'
a'
He then derives an analytical expression for the radius of curvature:
ds2 r ]--l
16r P:lffil:v6p1 -
The plane through ds,and the center o is Euler's definition of the osculating
plane at (*,!, Bernoulli, who introduced the term, regarded the
"1. John
pl.r" u, determined by three " coincident " points. Its equation, as given
by Euler, is
x(r dq - q dr) + yQ dr - r dp) + z(q dp - ? dq) : t,
where I is determined by the point (x,y, z) on the curve through which the
osculating plane passes. This equation is equivalent to the ooe we write
today in vector notation as
(R - r).r'; r' : 0,
where r(s) is the position vector \dth resPect to some point in space of the
point on ih" at which the osculating plane is determined, and R is
"r*i
the position vector of any point in the osculating plane' In vector form r is
given by
r(s)i +y(s)j + z(s)k
and R has the form Xi + yi I Zk, whete (X, Y, Z) are the coordinates
of R.
Clairaut had introduced the idea that a space curve has two curvatures'
One of these was standardized by Euler in the manner just described' The
other, now called '" torsion " and representing geometrically the rate at
which a curve departs from a plane at a point (*, y,
'),
was formulated
explicitly and analytically by Michel-Ange Lancret (177'1-1807), an
and mathematician who was a student of Monge and worked in
"rriir"".
his spirit. He singled out21 three principal directions at any point of a
21. Mdn. diocrs Savans, l, 1806, 416-54.
560 ANALYTIo AND DTFFERENTTAL GEoMETRY r.7oo-r8oo
curve. The first is that of the tangent. " Successive" tangents lie ih a plane,
the osculating plane. The normal to the curve that lies in the osculating
plane is the principal normal, and the perpendicular to the osculating plane,
the binormal, is the third principal direction. Torsion is the rate of change
of the direction of the binormal with respect to arc length; Lancret used
the terminology, flexion of successive osculating planes or successive bi-
normals.
Lancret represented a curve by
* : 6Q),{(z) v :
and called /p the angle between successive normal planes and dv that
between successive osculating ones. Then, in modern notation,
dr':!. 4!:!.
dspdsr
where p is the radius of curvature and r is the radius ol torsion.
Cauchy improved the lormulation of the concepts and clarified much
of the theory of space curves in his famous Legons sur les applications du calcul
itfrnitesimal d la giomitrie (1826).22 He discarded constant infinitesimals, the
ds's, and straightened out the confusion between increments and differen-
tials. He pointed out that when one writes
ds2:dx2+dy2+dzz
one should mean
(f)':H'*(*)'.(*)'
Cauchy preferred to write a surface as w(x,y, z) : 0 instead ofthe unsym-
metric form z : "f(x,y), and he wrote the equation ofa straight line through
the point ((, l, () as
{-x t-y (-z

cos cr cos B cos y
where cos c, cos p, and cos y are the direction cosines of the line, though
more often he used direction numbers instead of direction cosines.
Cauchy's development of the geometry of curves is practically modern.
He got rid of the spherical trigonometry in the proofs, but he, too, took the
arc length as the independent variable. He obtains for the direction cosines
of the tangent at any point
dx &t dz
-ar,
ir, i,
or x' (s), y' (s), z' (s).
22. @uures, (2),5.

SPACE CURVES 56r
The direction numbers of the principal normal are shown to be
#,#,,#, or x'(s),y"(s), z'(s)

and thc curvature * of the curve is
k:! : P
,{@, +-ATT,\-'.
c(, cos p,
Then he proves that, if the direction cosines of the tangent are cos
and cos y,
/(cos a) tr
*..:__E_: , " :---k B): P,fl'
cos d(cos cos
P,
(e) ,, d (cos y) cos v
-dsP
where p is the radius ol curvature already introduced and cos '\, cos p, and
cos y are the direction cosines ofa normal, which he takes to be the
principal
one. He shcws next that
lda
i:a
where is the angle between adjacent tangents'
ro
He introduces the osculating plane as the plane of the tangent and
principal normal. The normal to this plane is the binormal, and its direction
cosirr.t L, cos M, and cos I[ are given by the formulas
"ot
cos I cos M cos N
6F;=-A;AT: V;T; --Et du: 7;F;671'
He can then Prove that
L ,\ d cos M
:-;,
cos 14 d cos 'ly' cos /
(r0) a-:
d cos cos
---A, ---E-
",
where is the torsion, and that the torsion equals do//s, where O is the
l/r
angle between osculating Planes.
Formulas (9) and ( 10) are two of the three famous Serret-Fr6net
formulas, the third being
d cos tr cos d cos Z d 1t

cos cos P cos M
ds t dspa
(ll)
dcosv Cos )i cos tr[
ds a
562 ANALyrrc AND DTFFERENTTAL cEoMETRy rToo-r8oo
where I /r is the torsion arrd I lp is the curvature. These formulas (9), ( t0),
and (l l), which give the derivatives of the direction cosines of the tangent,
binormal, and normal respectively, were published by Joseph Alfred Serret
(l8l9+5) in 185138 and Fr6deric-Jean Frdnet (1816-1900) in l852.2a The
significance of curvature and torsion is that they are the two essential
properties of space curves. Given the curvature and torsion as functions
of arc length along the curve, the curve is completely determined except
for position in space. This theorem is readily proven on the basis of the
Serret-Fr6net formulas.
7. Tlu Tluory oJ Surfacu

Like the theory of space curves, the theory of surfaces made a slow start.
It began with the subject of geodesics on surfaces, with geodesics on the
earth as the main concern. lt the Journal dts Sgaoans of 1697, John Bernoulli
posd the problem of finding the shortest arc between two points on a
convex surface.2s He wrote to Leibniz in 1698 to point out that the osculating
plane (the plane of the osculating circle) at any point of a geodesic is perpen-
dicular to the surface at that point. In 1698 James Bernoulli solved the
geodesic problem on cylinders, cones, and surfaces of revolution. The
method was a limited one, though in 1728 John Bernoulli26 did have some
success with the method and found geodesics on other kinds of surfaces.
In 1728 Euler'7 gave difierential equations for geodesics on surfaces.
Euler used the method he introduced in the calculus of variations (see
C,hap,24, sec.2). In 1732 Jacob }lermann 28 also found geodesics on partic-
ular surfaces.
Clairaut in 1733 and again in 173938 in his work on the shape of the
earth treated more fully geodesics on surfaces of revolution. He proved in
the 1733 paper that for any surface of revolution, the sine of the angle made
by a geodesic curve and any meridian (any position ofthe generating curve)
it crosses varies inversely as the length of the perpendicular from the point
of intersection to the axis. fn another paperso he also proved the nice
theorem that if at any point rVI of a surface of revolution a plane be passed
normal to the surface and to the plane of the meridian through M, then the
curve cut out on the surface has a radius of curvature at M equal to the
23. Jour. dc Math., 16, 1851, 193-207.

24. Jou. de Math., 17, 1852,45747.
25. Opna, l, 20rt-5.
26. Opcra, +, 108_28.
27. Comm. Acad. Sci, Pe,rot.,3, 1728, ll0-24, pub, 1732 : O$era, (l),25, l-12.
28. Conm. Acad. Sci. Petro!., 6, 173213, 36-$7.
29. Hist. lc l'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1733, 186-94, pub. 1735 and 1739, 83-96, pub. 1741.
30. Mlm. de l'Acad, des Sci., Paris, 1735, ll7-22, pub. 1738,
Tr{E THEoRY oF suRFAcEs 563
length of the normal between M and, the axis of revolution. clairaut's

,.r.ihod, were analytical, but like most of his predecessors he did not employ
the ideas we now associate with the calculus of variations'
In 1760, in his R-echerclus sur la courbure d.es surfacessr Euler established
the theory oi sr.fuces. This work is Euler's most important contribution to
differential geometry and a landmark in the subject' He represents a surface
by z : f (x,-y) and introduces the now standard symbolism
0z 0z 022 - 022 t: 022
r:-ax"
e:";' ,:-rr' ':a*ay' E''
plane
He then says, " I begin by determining the radius of curvature of any
section of a surface; then I apply this solution to sections which are PerPen'
dicular to the surface at any given point; and finally I compare the radii
which
of curvature of these sections with respect to their mutual inclination,
puts us in a position to establish a Proper idea of the curvature of surliaces."
^ H. obtains first a rather complex expression for the radius of curvature
ofanycurvemadebycuttingthesurfacewithaplane.Hethenparticularizes
the result by applying it to normal sections (sections containing a normal
tothesurface).-Forno.malsectionsthegeneralexPressionfortheradiusof
curvature simplifies a little. Next he defines the principal normal section
as that normaliection perpendicular to the xy-plane' (This use
of " principal "
is not followed today.) The radius of curvature of a normal section whose
planemakesanangle.$withtheplaneoftheprincipalnormalsectionhas
the form
I
(12)
TTfuc"sZg + Nsin2$
where I, M, arrd Nare functions of x and' y' To obtain the greatest and least
curvature of all normal sections through one point on the surface (or' when
the form of the denominator in [12] is indefinite, to get the two Sreatest
curvatures), he sets the derivative with respect to { of the denominator
equal to ,".o (in both cases) obtains tan2$ -: NIM' Thete are two
"rd
.oot. diff".irg by 9d" so that there are two mutually perpendicular normal
planes. We *lt tt corresponding curvatures the principal curyatures r<1
and 12.
"
Ii foUow, from Euler's results that the curvature r of any other normal
section making an angle a with one of the sections with principal curvature
is
(13) ,( : ,(r COS2 a + xz Sin2 c,

This result is called Euler's theorem.
The same results were obtained in 1776 in a more elegant manner
by a student of Monge, Jean-Baptiste-Marie-Charles Meusnier de La Place
liZS+-SS;, who also worked in hydrostatics and in chemistry with Lavoisier'
31. Mim. de I'Acad. de Berlin,16, 1760, I 19-43, pub' 1767 = Oloa, (l)' 28' l-22'
564 ANALyrrc AND DTFFERENTTAL cEoMETRy r Too-r Boo
Meusnier32 then took up the curvature of non-normal sections, for which

Euler had obtained a very complex expression.'Meusnier's result, still called
Meusnier's theorem, is that the curvature of a plane section of a surface
at a point P is the curvature ofthe normal section through the same tangent
at P divided by the sine of the angle that the original plane makes with the
tangent plane at P. There follows the beautiful result that if one considers
the family of planes through the same tangent line MM' to a surface, the
centers of curvature of the sections made by these planes lie on a circle in a
plane perpendicular to MM' and whose diameter is the radius of curvature
of the normal section. Meusnier then proves the theorem that the only
surfaces for which the two principal curvatures are everywhere equal are
planes or spheres. His paper was remarkably simple and fertile; it hetped
to make intuitive a number of results reached in the eighteenth century.
A major concern of the theory of surfaces, motivated by the needs of
map-making, is the study of developable surfaces, that is, surfaces that can
be flattened out on a plane without distortion. Since the sphere cannot be
cut and then so flattened, the problem was to find surfaces with shapes close
to that ofa sphere that could be unrolled without distortion. Euler was the
first to consider the subject. This work is contained in his " De Solidis
Quorum Superficicm in Planum Explicare Licet."33 Surfaces were regarded
as boundaries of solids in the eighteenth century; this is why Euler speaks
of solids whose surfaces may be unfolded on a plane. In this paper he
introduces the parametric representation of surfaces, that is,
z :,c(t,u), y :y(t,u), z : z(t,u),
and asks what conditions these functions must satisfy so that the surface
may be developable on a plane. His approach is to represent t and u as
rectangular coordinates in a plane and then to form a small right-angled
triangle (r,u), (t + dt,u), (t,u + du). Because the surface is developable
this triangle must be congruent to a small triangle on the surface. If we
denote the partial derivatives ofx, y, and. z with respect to tby l, m, and n,
and those with respect to u by ,\, p, z, then the corresponding triangle on
the surface is (r,g,,r),(x + ldt,y * m dt, z + n dt),and (r * ldu,y + y. du,
z * v du). From the congruence of the two triangles Euler derives
(14) 12 + m2 + n2 :1, i2+p2 lv2:1, ll+mp+nv:O.
These are the analytic necessary and sufficient conditions for developability.
The condition is equivalent to requiring that the line element on the surface
equal the line element in the plane. Analytically the problem of determining
whether a surface is developable is the problem of finding a parametric
32. Mim. diaers Saaaw, 10, 1785, +77-85.

33. Nooi Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop., 16, 1771,3-34, p,ub. 1772 : Olera, (l), 28, l6l-86.
THE THEORY OF SURFACES s65
representation x(t,u), y(t, a), and z(l,z) such that the partial derivatives
satisfy the conditions (14).
Euler then investigated the relationship between space curves and
developable surfaces and showed that the family of tangents to any space
curve fills out or constitutes a developable surface. He tried unsuccessfully
to show that every developable surface is a ruled surf;ace, that is, one gener-
ated by a moving straight line, and conversely. The converse is, in fact,
not true.
The subject of developable surfaces was taken up independently by
Gaspard Monge. With Monge geometry and analysis supported each other'
He embraced simultaneously both aspects of the same problem and showed
the usefulness of thinking both geometrically and analytically' Because
analysis had dominated the eighteenth century, despite some analytic
geometry and differential geometry by Euler and Clairaut, the effect of
Mo.rg." double view was to put geometry on at Ieast an equal basis with
analysis and then to inspire the revival of pure geometry. He is the first real
innovator in synthetic geometry after Desargues.
His extensive work in descriptive geometry (which primarily serves
architecture), analytic geometry, differential geometry, and ordinary and
partial differential equations won the admiration and envy of Lagrange'
Th. Irtt"., after listening to a lecture by Monge, said to him, "You have
just presented, my dear colleague, many elegant things. I wish I could have
doni them." Monge contributed much to physics, chemistry, metallurgy
(problems of forges), and machinery. In chemistry he worked with Lavoisier'
lidorg" sr* the need for science in the development ofindustry and advocated
industrialization as a path to the betterment of life. He was inspired by an
active social concern, perhaps because he knew the hardships of humble
origins. For this reason, too, he supPorted the French Revolution and served
u. Mirrirt". of the Navy and as a member of the Committee on Public Health
in the succeeding governments. He designed armaments and instructed
governmental staff in technical matters' His admiration for Bonaparte
seduced him into following the latter in his counter-revolutionary measures.
Monge helped to organize the Ecole Polytechnique and as a professor
there lounded a school of geometers. IIe was a great teacher and a force in
inspiring nineteenth-century mathematical activity. His vigorous and fertile
lectures communicated enthusiasm to his students, among whom were at
least a dozen of the most famous men of the early nineteenth century'
Monge created results in three-dimensional differential geometry which
go far beyond Euler's. His paper of 1771, Mhnoire sur les diaeloppies, les rayons
d, ,ourburr, et les difirents genres d'infexions fus courbes d double courbure, published
much later,3a was followed by his Feuilles d'analgse appliquie d la giomitrie
(1795, second ed. l80l). The Feuilles was as much differential geometry as
34. Mim. diaers Saaans, 10, 1785, 5ll-50'
566 ANALyrrc AND DIFFERENTTAL oEoMETRY IToo-IBoa
analytic geometry and partial differential equations' Based on lecture notes,

it ofiered a systematization and extension of old results, new results ofsome
importance, and the translation of various properties of curves and surfaces
into the language of partial differential equations. In pursuing the corre-
spondence between the ideas of analysis and those of geometry, Monge
recogrrized that a liamily of surfaces having a common geometric property or
defined by the same method of generation should satisfy a partial differential
equation (cf. Chap. 22, sec.6).
Monge's first major work, the paper on the developable surfaces of
curves of double curvature, takes up space curves and surfaces associated
with them. At this time Monge did not know of Euler's work on developable
surfaces. He treats space curves either as the intersections of two surfaces
or by means of their projections on two perpendicular planes, given by
y : 4@) and z :,/(*). At any ordinary point there is an infinity of normals
(perpendiculars to the tangent line) lying on one plane, the normal plane.
In this plane there is a line he calls the (polar) axis, which is the limit of
the intersection with a neighboring normal plane. As one moves along the
curve the normal planes envelop a developable surface, called the polar
developable. The surface is also swept out by the axes of the normal planes.
The perpendicular from P to the axis in the normal plane at P is the principal
normal and the foot Q of the perpendicular is the center of curvature.
To get the equation of the polar developable, he finds the equation
of the normal plane and eliminates x between this equation and the partial
derivative of the equation with respect to r. He also gives a rule for finding
the envelope of any one-parameter family of planes that is the one we use
today. The rule, which applies equally well to a one-parameter family of
surfaces, is this: In our notation, he takes F(x,y, z, o) : 0 as the family.
To find where this meets "an infinitely near surface " he finds 0Fl0a:0.
The curve of intersection of the two surfaces is called the characteristic
curve. The equation of the envelope is found by eliminating a between
F : 0 and 4FlAa :0. He applies this method to the study of other develop-
able surfaces, each of which he regards as the envelope of a one-parameter
family of planes.
Monge also considered the edge of regression (arite de rebroussement) of
a developable surface. The edge (curve) is formed by a set oflines generating
the surface. The intersection of any two neighboring lines is a point and the
locus ofsuch points is the edge of regression I. Then the tangents to f are
the generators, or I
is the envelope of the family of generating lines. The
edge of regression separates the developable surface into two nappes, just
as a cusp separates a plane curve into two parts. Monge obtained the
equations of the edge of regression. In the case of the polar developable
surface of a space curve, the edge of regression is the locus of the centers of
curvature of the original curve.
THE TrrEoRY or suRFACEs 567
In 1775 Monge presented to the Acaddmie des Sciences another paper

on surfaces, particularly developable surllaces that occur in the theory of
shadows and-penumbras.ss lJsing the definition that a developable surface
can be flattenld out on a plane without distortion, he argues intuitively
that
a developable surface is a ruled surface (but not conversely) on which two
consecutive lines are concurrent or parallel and that any developable
is
equivalent to that formed by the tangents to a space curve' It is in this paper

ofl77S thut he gives a general representation of developable surfaces. Their
equations are alwaYs of the form
z : xlF(d - cF'(q)f + lQ) - cl'(d,

where 4 : azlay and the partial differential equation which such surfaces,
except ior cylinders perpendicular to the ,y-Plane, always satisfy is
z*xZyy - z?n : 0.
Monge then studies ruled surfaces and gives a general representation

for them.-Also, he gives the third order partial diflerential equation which
they satisfy and iniegrates this differential equation' He then proves that
developable surfaces are a special case of ruled surfaces'
In the " MCmoire sur la th6orie des ddblais et des remblais " (Excava-
tion and Fill) of 1776,s€ he considers the problem arising in building forti-
fications which involves the transport of earth and other materials from one
place to another and seeks to do it in the most efficient way, that is' the
material transported times the distance transported should be a minimum'
only part of this work is important for the differential geometry of surfaces;
i., fu"i, the results of the practical problem are not too realistic and' as
Monge says, he published the paper for the sake of the Seometrical results
in it.- Here he it iti.to the treatment of the subject of a family of lines
depending upon t\ilo Parameters or a congruence of lines' Then, following
.rp or, tfrJ *o"k of Euier and Meusnier, he considers the family of normals
ti a surliace,S, which also forms a congruence of lines' Consider io particular
the normals along a line of curvature, a line of curvature being a curve on
the surface that has a principal curvature at each point on the curve' The
surflace normals at these poit t of a line of curvature form a developable
surface, called a normal developable. Likewise, the surface normals along
the line of curyature perpendiiular to the first one form a developable
surface. Since there are t;o families of lines of curvature on
the surhce'
there are two families of developable surliaces, and the members of one
intersect the members of the other at right angles' The intersection of any
two in fact takes place along a surface normal' On each normal there are
35. Mhn. ditcrs Saaaw,9, 1780,382-440'

36. Mhn. dc l'Acad. des Sci., Paris,l78l, 666-704, pub' 1784'
ANALYTIC AND DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY ITOO-IBOO
two points distant from the surface by tJre amount of the two principal
curvatures. Each set ofpoints determined by one of the principal curyatures,
one on each of the normals to a line of curvature, lies on the edge of regres-
sion of the developable surface formed by that set ol normals, so that the
normals are taDgert to tlat edge. The edges of regression of one family of
developable surfaces all constitute a surface called a center surface. There
are then two such center surfaces (Fig. 23.13). The envelope of each family
of developable surfaces is called a focal surface.
The further details of Monge's work on families of surfaces, families

which satisfr nonlinear and linear first, second, and even third order partial
differential equations, are more significant for the subject of partial difler-
ential equations.
Monge tended to treat fully a number of concrete curves and surfaces
thrgugh which he explained his ideas. The generalizations and the exploita-
tion of his ideas were carried out by nineteenth-century men. Always
practically oriented, Monge concluded his Feuilles with a projection of how
his theory could be applied to architecture and in particular to the construc-
tion of Iarge meeting halls.
Some additional contributions to the theory of surfaces were made by
Charles Dupin (1784-1873), a pupil of Monge. Dupin was graduated from
the Ecole Polytechnique as a naval engineer and, like Monge, constantly
kept applications of geometry in mind. His text Diuelopfiements de gdomitrie
TrrE THBORY OF SURIACES 569
(l8l3) was subtitled "With applications to the stability of ships, excavation

and fill, fortifications, optics, and so forth," and in other writings, notably
his Apptications de giomitrie et de micanique (1822), he made many applications
to geometry and to mechanics. The first few results we shall describe are
in the lBlS book.
One of Dupin's contributions, which sums up and clarifies prior results
of Euler and Meusnier, is called the Dupin indicatrix. Given the tangent
plane of a surface at a Point M, he laid off in each direction and starting
from M a segment whose length is equal to the square root of the radius of
curvature of the normal section of the surface in that direction. The locus
of the endpoints of these segments is a conic, the indicatrix, which gives a
first approximation to the form of the surface around M (because it is
almost similar to a section of the surface made by a plane neat M and
parallel to the tangent plane at M) . The lines of curvature of a surface at a
point, that is, the curves on the surface through M hLaving extreme (maxi-
mum or minimum) curvature, are the curves having as tangents at M the
axes of the indicatrix.
In the three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system, the coordinate
surfaces are the three families of surfaces * : const., y : const., and z :
const. Suppose one has three families of surfaces, each given by an equation
in x, g, and z. lf each member of one family cuts the members of the other
two families orthogonally, then the three families are called orthogonal'
Dupin's foremost result in this subject, which is in his Diaeloppcmmtu, is the
theorem that the three families of orthogonal surfaces cut each other along
the lines of curvature (the curves of maximum or minimum normal curvature)
on each surface,
Dupin also extended Monge's results on congruences of lines. If the
congruence, the two-parameter family, is cut orthogonally by a family of
surfaces, as is the case in optics where the lines are light rays and the surfaces
are wave fronts, then the congruence is called normal. Apparently using
Monge's results, though he does not refer to tJrem, Etienne-Louis Malus
(1775-1512), a French physicist, proved3? that a normal congruence of lines
emanating from one point (a homocentric set) remains such after reflection
or relraction (according to the laws of optics) at a surfiace' In 181638 Dupin
proved that this is true for any normal cougruence after any number of
reflections. Lambert A. J. Quetelet (1796-1874) then gave a proof that a
normal congruence remains-normal after any number of refractions.se The
subject of congruences of lines and complexes of lines, families introduced
by Malus and depending on three parameters' was pursued by many men
in the nineteenth centurY.
37. Jour. de l'Ecole Polu., Cahier 14, 1808, l-M, 84-129.
38. Annales dc Chimie et tle Physique,s, 1817, 85-88. Also in his Alplications ot 1822, 195-97'
39. Correspondante nathzmatique et Phytique, 1,1825, 14749.
570 ANALYIIC AND DTFFERENTTAL GEOMETRY r TOO-r8OO
8. Tlu Mapping Problem

A great deal of the differential geometry of the eighteenth century was
motivated by problems of geodesy and map-making. However, the map-
making problem involves special considerations and difficulties that generated
mathematical developments, notably confoimal transformations or con-
formal mapping, running across many mathematical subjects. Map-making
is of course much older than differential geometry, and even mathematical
methods of mapping go far back. Of these, stereographic projection and
other methods (Chap. 7, sec. 5) stem from Ptolemy, and Mercator's pro-
jection (Chap. 12, sec. 2) dates from the sixteenth century. It may have
been intuitively clear prior to the eighteenth century that no true map ofa
sphere could be made on a plane, that is, one cannot map a sphere on a plane
and still preserve lengths. If this were possible all the geometric properties
would be preserved. Only developable surfaces can be so mapped and these,
the eighteenth-century work revealed, are cylinders (not necessarily circular),
cones, and any surface generated by the tangent lines of a space curve. Since
a map of a sphere on a plane cannot preserve all the geometric properties,
attention was directed toward maps that preserve angles,
In such maps, if two curves on one surface meet at an angle o and the
corresponding curves on the other meet at the same angle, and if the direc-
tion of the angles is preserved, the map is said to be conformal. Stereographic
projection and the Mercator projection are conformal. Conformality does
not mean that tlvo corresponding fnib figves are similar, because the
equality of the angles is a property holding at a point.
J. H. Lambert initiated a new epoch in theoretical cartography. He was
the first to consider the conformal mapping of the sphere on the plane in full
generality; and in a book of 1772, Anmnkungen und Zusiitze zur Entwerfung
thr l-and-und Himmckchartcn (Notes and Additions on Designing Land Maps
and Maps of the Heavens), he obtained the formulas for this mapping.
Euler, too, made many contributions to the subject and actually made a
map of Russia. In a paper presented to the St. Petersburg Academy in
1768,10 Euler, by using complex functions, devised a method of represent-
ing conformal transformations from one plane to another. But he did not
capitalize on it. Then, in two papers presented in 1775,41 he showed that the
sphere cannot be mapped congruently into a plane. Here again he used
complex functions and treated rather general conformal representations.
He also gave a full analysis of the Mercator and stereographic projections.
Lagrange in 1779a2 obtained all conformal transformations of a portion of
4O. Noai Comm. Acad. Soi. Parol., l+, 1769, t0't-28, pub. l77O: Olcra, (l)' 28' 99-119.
41. Acta Acad. Sci. Petrop.,l, 1777, lO7'32 and 133-42, pub' 1778 : Olera, (l),28,
248-75 atd 276-87.
42. Nouu, Mtim. de I'Acad, dc Berlin, 1779, 16l-210' pub. l78l : CEuttrest 4,637-92.
BTBLTOGRAPTTY 57|
the earth's surface onto a plane area that transform latitude and longitude
circles into circular arcs.
Further progress in the mapping problem and in conformal mapping
in particular awaited the extension of differential geometry and complex
function theory.
Bibliogmphy
Ball, W. W. Rouse: "On Newton's Classification of Cubic Curves," Pnccedhgs
hndon Mathematical Societg, 22, 1890, 10,H3.
oJ thc
Bernoulli, John: Opera Omnia, 4 vols., 1742, reprint by Georg OIms, 1968.
Berzolari, Luigi: "Allgemeine Theorie der hiiheren ebenen algcbraischen Kurven,"
bugk, der Math. WLss.,B. G. Teubner, 1903-15, III C4,313-455.
Boyer, Carl B.: History of Analytic Gconutry, Scripta Mathematica, 1956, Chapo.
6-8.
A History of Mathematics, John Wilcy and Sons, 1968, Chaps. 2O and 21.
Brill, A., and Max Noether: " Die Entwicklung der Thcoric der algebraischen
Funktionen in ilterer und neuerer Zeit," Jahres. der Dcut. Math.-Vach., 3,
r8s2/3, 107-56.
Cantor, Moritz t Vorlcsungm iber Geschichtc dcr Matlumatik, B. G. Teubner, 1898
ard 1924; Johnson Reprint Corp., 1965, Vol.3, 18-35,748-829; Vol.4,
37s-88.
Chasles, M.t Ap*gu historiquc sur l'origitu cl lc deuloppnunt dcs mithodcs cn gionitrit
(1837), 3rd ed., Gauthier-Villars, 1889, pp. 142-252-
Coolidge,Julian L. : " The Beginnings of Analytic Geometry in Three Dimensions,"
Anur. Math. Monthly, 55, 1948, 76-86.
A History of Geometrical Methods, Dover (reprint), 1963, pp. 13+-40,
318-46.
Tfu Mathcmatics d Great Amakurs. Dover (reprint), 1963, Chap. 12.
A H;stnry of Conic Sections and Quadric Surfaccs, Dover (reprint), 1968.
Euler, Leonhardt Opera Omnia, Orcll Fiissli, Series l, Vol. 6 (1921), Vols. 26-29
(1953-56); Series 2, Vols. 3 and 4 (1948-50), Vol. 9 (1968).
Huygens, Christian: Horclogium Oscillatorium (1673), reprint by Dawsons, 1966;
also in Huygens, (Euwcs Compl2us, 18,27438.
Hofmann, Jos. E. : "UberJakob Bernoutlis Beiriige zur Infinitcsimalmathematik,"
L' Enscigument MatMnatiqu, (2), 2, 61-17 1, 956 ; published separately by
1
Institut de Math6matiques, Geneva, 1957.

K6tter, Brnst: "Die Entwickelung der synthetischen Geometrie von Monge bis
auf Staudt," Johrcs. dcr Dcut. Math.-Vcrcin., 5, Part II, 1896, l-.186; also as
a book, B. G. Teubner, 1901.
Lagrange, Joscph-Louis: (Euwes, Gauthier-Villan, 1867-69, Vol. l, 3-20; Vol. 3,
6r9-92.
Lambert, J. H,t Anrcrkungen und Zusiitzc zur EntucrJung der Land-und Himnvlscharkn
(1772), Ostwald's Klassiker No.54, Wilhelm Engelmann, Lcipzig, 1896,
Loria, Gino: Spczicllz algcbraisclu und banzcndrnte cbcrun Kuwn, Tluoi. und
Gcsdichtt,2 vols.,2nd ed., B. G. Teubner, l9l0-Il.
572 ANALYTICAL AND DTFFERENTTAL GEOMETRY rTOO-rBOO
Montucla, J. F.: Histoirc drs mathdmatiques (1802), Albdrt Blanchard (reprint),

1960, Vol. 3, pp. 63-102.
Struik, D. !.: A Sowcc Book in Matlumalbs, 1200-1800, Harvard University Press,
1969, pp. 168-78, 180-83, 263-69, 413-19.
Taton, RenC: L'CEuare sebntifque de Monge, Presses Universitaires de France, 1951,
Chap. 4.
Whiteside, Derek T.: " Patterns of Mathematical Thought in the Later Seven-
teenth Century," Archiae for History of Exact Scbnus, 1, 1961, 179-388. See
pp. 202-5 and 270-31 l.
...-....'.....'........: Tfu Mathemarical Works of Isaac Ncwtan,
Johnson Reprint Corp., 1967,
Vol. 2, 137-61. This coutains Newton's Enururofib in English.
2+
The Calculus of Variations in the
Eighteenth Century
For since the fabric of the universe is most Perfect and the
work of a most wise Creator, nothing at all takes place in the
universe in which some rule of maximum or minimum does
not appear. LEONHARD EULER
l. The Initial Problems

As in the areas of series and differential equations, the early work on the
calculus ofvariations could hardly be distinguished from the calculus proper.
But within a few years after Newton's death in 1727 it was clear that a
totally new branch of mathematics, with its own characteristic problems
and methodology, had come into being' This new subject, almost comparable
in importance with differential equations for mathematics and science,
supplied one of the grandest principles in all of mathematical physics.
To gain some preliminary notion of the nature of the calculus of varia-
tions, let us consider the problems that launched the mathematicians into
the subject. Historically the first significant problem was posed and solved
by Newton. In Book II of his Printipia, he studied the motion of objects in
water; then, in the Scholium to Proposition 34 of the third edition, he
considered the shape that a surface ofrevolution moving at a constant velocity
in the direction ofits axis must have if it is to offer the least resistance to the
motion, Newton assumed that the resistance of the fluid at any Point on the
surface of the body is proportional to the component of the velocity normal
to the surface. ln the Principia itself he gave only a geometrical characteriza-
tion of the desired shape, but in a letter presumably written to David
Gregory in 1694 he gave his solution.
In modern form, Newton's problem is to find the minimum value of
the integral
r:1."#ffi*
Jli
s74 THE CALCULUS Or VARTATTONS r TOO-r8OO
Figurc 24.1 Figure 24.2
by choosing the proper function y(*) for the shape of the curve that is to
be rotated around the x-axis (Fig. 24. t). The peculiar feature ofthis problem
(and of calculus of variations problems generally) is that it poses an integral
whose value depends upon an unknown function y(r) which appears in
the integrand and which is to be determined so as to make the integral a
minimum or a maximum.
Newton's solution, though it did use the idea of introducing a change
in the shape of a part of the meridian arc y(x), which is almost what the
essential method of the calculus of variations involves, is not typical of the
technique ofthe subject and so we shall not look into it. It may be ofinterest
that the parametric equations of the proper y(r) are
,:!00+!r),, y : a +r(- rogp + p' +34p'\'
where y' is the parameter. Of this work Newton says, "This proposition I
conceive may be of use in the building of ships." Problems of this nature
have become important in the design not only of ships but submarines and
airplanes.
In the Acta Eruditorum of June 16961 John Bernoulli proposed as a
challenge to other mathematicians the now llamous brachistochrone problem'
The problem is to determine the path down which a particle will slide from
one given point to another not directly below in the shortest time. The initial
velocity o1 at P1 Gig. 2a.4 is given; friction and air resistance are to be
neglected. In modern form, this problem is to minimize the integral "I which
represents the time of descent where
,:+*l:: | + ly'(x))2 dx.

s@)-"
l. Page 269 : O?era, l, 16l.
TI{E INITIAL PROBLEMS 575
Here g is the gravitational acceleration and c : yt - tt?l2g'Again the

y(*)
in the integra-nd must be chosen so as to make J a minimum' The problem
hadbeenformulatedandincorrectlysolvedbyGalileo(t630and1638),
who gave the arc ol a circle as the answer' The correct answer is the arc
of
is
the ririque cycloid joining P, and the second point Pr, which concave
just the
,p*u.d i the iine I on wtrict the generating circle rolls must be at
proper height, y : d, above the given initial point of fall' Then there is one
and only one cycloid through the two points'
N.*ton, Leibniz, L'Hospital, John Bernoulli, and his elder brother
James found the correct solution. All these were published in the May issue
"oftheActaEruditorumof16gT.ThesolutionsofthetwoBernoulliswarrant
2
further comment. John,s method was to that the path of quickest descent
see
is the same as the lath of a ray ollight in arnedium with a suitably

selected
variable index of refraction, n(x,g) : tl{-y - ". The law of refraction at
a sharp discontinuity (Snell's law) was known; soJohn broke
up the medium
into a finite number of layers with a sharp change in index lrom layer to
layer and then let the number of layers go to infinity' James's methods was
But it was also more general
-r"h *or" laborious and more geometrical'
and was a bigger step in the direction ofmethod for the calculus ofvariations'
ffre cyJiia was well known through the work of Huygens and others
on the peniulum problem (Chap. 23, sec' 5)' When the Bernoulli brothers
found ihat it was also the soluiion of the brachistochrone problem, they
were amazed. John Bernoulli said,a "With justice we admire Huygens
because he firsi discovered that a heavy particle traverses a cycloid
in the
same time, no matter what the starting point may be' But you will be struck
with astonishment when I say that t'his very same cycloid, the tautochrone
of Huygens, is the brachistochrone we are seeking'"
Arr"ott ., important class of problems calls for geodesics, that
is' paths
of minimum lerigth between two points on a surface' If the surf;ace is a
plane then the integral involved is
J : i,, ylfifi@p dx,
and the answer is of course a line segment' In the eighteenth century the
geodesic problem of most interest concerned the shortest Paths on the surface
If ,h" whose precise shape was not known, though the mathematicians
"r.itt,
believed it was some form of ellipsoid and most likely a figure of revolution.
The early work on geodesics already noted (Chap' 23, sec' 7) did not use
themethodofthecalculusofvariationsbutitwasclearthatspecialdevices
would not be powerful enough to treat the general geodesic problem'
2. Acta Erud., 1697, 206-t I = Opcta, I' 187-93.
3. Acta Erutl., 1697, 2ll-17 = Opotd' 2, 768-78'
4. open, l; 187-93.
576 THE cALcuLUs oF vARrATroNs r Too-r8oo
Analytically the problems thus far formulated are of the form
J : j*'ftr,v,u) d*
and call for finding the y(*) that extends from (rr,yr) to (xr, yr) and that
minimizes or maximizes J. Another class of problems, called isoperimetrical
problems, also entered the history of the calculus of variations at the end
of the seventeenth century. The progenitor of this cldss of problems, of all
closed plane curves with a given perimeter to find the one that bounds
maximum area, may date back to pre-Greek times. There is a story that
Princess Dido of the ancient Phoenician city of Tyre ran away from her
home to settle on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa. There she
bargained for some land and agreed to pay a fixed sum for as much land
as could be encompassed by a bull's hide. The shrewd Dido cut the hide
into very thin strips, tied the strips end to end and proceeded to enclose
an area having the total length of these strips as its perimeter. Moreover,
she chose land along the sea so that no hide would be needed along the
shore. According to the legend Dido decided thar the length of hide should
form a semicircle-the correct shape to enclose maximum area.
Apart from the work ofZenodorus (Chap. 5, sec. 7), there was practically
no work on isoperimetrical problems until the end ofthe seventeenth century.
In a move to challenge and embarrass his brother, James Bernoulli posed
a rather complicated isoperimetrical problem involving several cases in the
Acta Eruditorum of May l697.sJames even offered John a prize of fifty ducats
for a satisfactory solution. John gave several solutions, one of which was
obtained in 1701,6 but all were incorrect. James gave a correct solution.?
The brothers quarreled about the correctness of each other's solutions.
Actually James's method, as in the case of the brachistochrone problem,
was a major step toward the general technique soon to be fashioned. In
l7l8 John 8 considerably improved his brother's solution.
Analytically the basic isoperimetric problem is formulated thus. The
possible curves are represented parametrically by
x:x(t), s:yU), \<t<t2
and because they are closed curves, x(t) : tc(t2) and.y(tr) : y(tr). Moreover
no curve must intersect itself. The problem then calls for determining the
x(t) and, y(t) such that the length
t: f" t/@f 1 1yf at
JI,
5. Page 214.
6. Min, de I'Acad. des. Sci., Paris, 1706,235: Olera, 1,424.
7. Acta Erud., 1701,213 ff, : Oicra, 2,897-920.
8. M,in. de I'Aeqd. du Sci., Paris, 1718, 100 ff, : Opera,2,23549.
THE EARLY WORK OF EULER s77
is a given constant and such that the area integral
, : l,:; (xg' - x'v) dt
is a maximum. There are two new features in this isoperimetrical problem.

One, the use of the parametric representation, is incidental' The other is
the presence of the auxiliary condition that Z must be a constant'
Another problem that James posed in the May 1697 issue of the Acta
wa. dete.-ine the shape of the curve along which a particle slides from
to
a given point P, with given initial velocity ,1 to any point of a line I (Fig'
Z+.S; so as to make the time of sliding from P, to / a minimum' This problem
differs from the preceding ones in that the possible curves do not extend
from one fixed point to another but from a fixed point to some line' The
answer, given by James in the Acta of 1698 (though possessed by John in
1697 bui not published by him), is an arc of a cycloid that cuts the line I
at right angles. This problem was later generalized to the cases where I
b" u.ry given curve and where in place of P1 another curve is given, so
"u.,
that the problem is to find the path requiring least time to slide from some
point on one given curve to some point on another. This class of problems
is described by the phrase " problems with variable endpoints"'
2. The Early Work of Euler

John Bernoulli proposed to Euler the problem ofobtaining
In I 728 geodesics
on su.faces by using the property that the osculating planes of geodesics
cut the surface at right angles (Chap. 23, sec. 7). This problem started
Euler off on the calculus of variations. He solved it in 1728'e In 1734 Euler
generalized the brachistochrone problem to minimize quantities other than
time and to take into account resisting media.lo
Then Euler undertook to find a more general approach to Problems
in the subject. His method, which was a simplification ofJames Bernoulli's,
was to replace the integral of a problem by a finite sum and to replace
9. Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,3, 1728, ll}-24, pub. 1732 : OPcta, (l), 25, l-12'
lO. Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,7, 1734135, 13a/:9, pub. 1740 : Olera, (l)' 25, 4l-53'
578 THE CALCULUS OF VARTATTONS r TOO-rBOO
derivatives in the integrand by difference quotients, thus making the integral

a function ofa finite number of ordinates of the arcy(*). He then varied one
or more arbitrarily selected ordinates and calculated the variation in the
integral. By equating the variation of the integral to zero and by using a
crude limiting process to transform the resulting difference equation, he
obtained the diflerential equation which must be satisfied by the minimizing
arc.
By the above described method applied to integrals of the form
(l) J : I*'l@,y,y,) d*,

Euler succeeded in showing that the function y(x) that minimizes or maxi-
mizes the value ofJ must satisfy the ordinary differential equation
(2) r, - !bu) : o.
This notation must be understood in the following sense. The integrand
"f(x,A,y') is to be regarded as a function of the independent variables x,
!, arrdy'insofar as rf, and fu, are concerned. However dJr,ldx rnust be taken
to be the derivative of Ju, wherein fo, depends on * through x, y, and g'.
That is, Euler's differential equation is equivalent to
(3) f, - fr'* - fr'uY' -.fr'u'!' : o.
Since;f is known, this equation is a second order, generally nonlinear,

ordinary differential equation in g(x). This famous equation, which Euler
published rr in 1736, is still the basic diflerential equation of the calculus
of variations. It is, as we shall see more clearly later, a necessary condition
that the minimizing or maximizing function y(x) must satisfy.
Euler then tackled more difficult problems that involved special side
conditions, as in the isoperimetric problems, but his procedure was still
to solve the differential equation (3) in order to get first the possible mini-
mizing or maximizing arcs and then to determine from the number of
constants in the general solution of (2) or (3) what side conditions he could
apply. One of the problems he tackled was called to his attention by Daniel
Bernoulli in a letter of 1742. Bernoulli proposed to find the shape of an
elastic rod subject to pressure at both ends by assuming that the square of
the curvature along the curve taken by the bent rod, that is, I: dstBr,
where s is arc length and .R is the radius of curvature, is a minimum. This
condition amounts to assuming that the potential energy stored up in the
shape taken by the rod is a minimum.
ll. Comm. Aead. Sci. Petrop.,8, 1736, 159-90, pub. l74l : O?erq (l), 25, 54-80.
THE PRINCIPLE OF LEAST ACTION 579
The differential equation (3) is not the proper one when the integrands
of the integrals to be minimized or maximi zed, are more complicated than
-the
in (l). In years from 1736 to 1744 E;uler improved his methods and
obtained the differential equations analogous to (3) for a large number of
problems. These results he published in 1744 in a book, Methodus Inaeniendi
Lioro, Curro, Maximi Minimiae Proprictat'e Gaudentes (The Art of Finding
Curved Lines Which Enjoy Some Maximum or Minimum Property)'l2
Euler's work in his Method,us was cumbersome because he used geometric
considerations, successive differences, and series and he changed derivatives
to difference quotients and integrals to finite sums' He failed, in other
words, to makJ most eflective use of the calculus' But he ended with simple
and elegant formulas applicable to a large variety of problems; and he
treated i large number of e*"mpl.s to show the convenience and generality
of his methoJ. One example deals with minimal surfaces of revolution. Here
the problem is to determine the plane curve y : J@) lying between ('ro, yo)
and (xr,y1) such that when revolved around the *-axis it generates the
surface of least area. The integral to be minimized is
(4) n:l.'z,y{T1-sad*.
Euler proved that the function;t(x) must be an arc ofa catenary; the surface
so gerirrted is called a catenoid. In an appendix to his 1744 book Euler
.lro' g.\re a definitive solution of the elastic-rod problem referred to above.
He ,r-ot orrly deduced that the shape of the rod took the form of an elliptic
integral, but also gave solutions for different kinds of end-conditions. This
boof brought hirrr immediate fame and recognition as the greatest living
mathematician.
With this work the calculus of variltions came into existence as a new
branch of mathematics. However, geometrical arguments were used exten-
sively, and the combined analytical and geometrical arguments were not
only complicated but hardly provided a systematic general method' Euler
was fully aware of these limitations'
3. The PrinciPle of Least Action

while in the solution of problems of the calculus of variations was
progress
being mad1, a new motivation for work in the subject came directly from
phyri"s. The contemporary development was the Principle of Least Agtiont
to the basis for this principle we must go back a bit' Euclid had
"*ptui.,
prorr"i itt his Catopfiica (Chap. 7, sec. 7) that light traveling from P to a
mirror (Fig. 24.4) andthen to Q takes the path fior which {l : {2' Then
theAlexandrianHeronprovedthatthepathPiRQ,whichlightactually
12. OPera, (l),24.
58o THE CALCULUS OF VARTATTONS rTOO-rBOO
Figure 24.4
takes, is shorter than any other path, such as PR'Q, which it could conceiv-
ably take. Since the light takes the shortest path, if the medium on the
upper side of the line.R.R'is homogeneous, then the light travels with constant
velocity and so takes the path requiring least time. Heron applied this
principle of shortest path and least time to problems of reflection from
concave and convex spherical mirrors.
Basing their case on this phenomenon of reflection and on philosophic,
theological, and aesthetic principles, philosophers and scientists after Greek
times propounded the doctrine that nature acts in the shortest possible way
or, as Olympiodorus (6th cent. A.b.) said in his Catoptrica, " Nature does
nothing superfluous or any unnecessary work." Leonardo da Vinci said
nature is economical and her economy is quantitative, and Robert Grosseteste
believed that nature always acts in the mathematically shortest and best
possible way. In medieval times it was commonly accepted that nature
behaved in this manner,
The seventeenth-century scientists were at least receptive to this idea
but, as scientists, tried to tie it to phenomena that supported it. Fermat
knew that under reflection light takes the path requiring least time and,
convinced that nature does indeed act simply and economically, affirmed
in letters of 1657 and 166213 his Principle of Least Time, which states that
light always takes the path requiring least time. He had doubted the correct-
ness of the Iaw of refraction of light (Chap. 15, sec. 4) but when he found
in 16611{ that he could deduce it from his Principle, he not only resolved
his doubts about the law but felt all the more certain that his Principle was
correct.
Fermat's Principle is stated mathematically in several equivalent forms.
According to the law of refraction
srn, a7
srn,r t2
where a, is the velocity of light in the first medium and ,2 in the second. The
ratio of rl to z, is denoted by z and is called the index of refraction of the
13. (Eut res, 2, 354-59, 457-63.
14. (Euures, 2, 457-63,
THE PRTNcTPLE oF LEAsr AcrroN 58,
second medium relative to the first, or, if the first is a vacuum, a is called
the absolute index of refraction of the nonvacuous medium. If, denotes
the velocity of light in a vacuum, then the absolute index z : c/z where a is
the velocity of light in the medium. If the medium is variable in character
lrom point to point, then z and a are functions of x, y, and z. Hence the time
required for Iight to travel from a point P1 to a point P, along a curve *(o),
y(o), z(o) is given by
(5) ': f":+

: I:.':
^:+ I::
o(*,y, z)\/FA@JZ do,
where o, is the value of o at Pl and o2 the value at P2. Thus the Principle
states that the path light actually takes in traveling from P, to P, is given
by the curve which makes .f a minimum.ls
By the early eighteenth century the mathematicians had several im-
pressive examples of the llact that nature does attempt to maximize or
minimize some important quantities. Huygens, who had at first objected
to Fermat's Principle, showed that it does hold for the propagation of light
in media with variable indices of refraction. Even Newton's fust law of
motion, which states that the straight line or shortest distance is the natural
motion of a body, showed nature's desire to economize, These examples
suggested that there might be some more general principle. The search for
such a principle was undertaken by Maupertuis.
Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759), while working with
the theory of light in 1744, propounded his famous Principle of Least Action
in a paper entitled "Accord des diffErentes lois de la nature qui avaient
jusqu'ici paru incompatibles." 18 He started from Fermat's Principle, but in
view of disagreements at that time as to whether the velocity of light was
proportional to the index of refraction as Descartes and Newton believed,
or inversely proportional as Fermat believed, Maupertuis abandoned least
time. In fact he did not believe that it was always correct.
Action, Maupertuis said, is the integral of the product of mass, velocity,
and distance traversed, and any changes in nature are such as to make the
action least. Maupertuis was somewhat vague because he failed to specify
the time interval over which the product of m, a, an,d J was to be taken and
because he assigned a different meaning to action in each ofthe applications
he made to optics and some problems of mechanics.
Though he had some physical examples to support his Principle,
Maupertuis advocated it also for theological reasons. The laws of behavior
of matter had to possess the perfection worthy of God's creation; and the
15. There are instances, as for example in the reflcction of light from a concave mirror,
where light takes the path requiring maximum time. This fact was known to Fermat and
was explicitly stated by William R. Hamilton.
16. M,in. de l'Acad. des Sci.., Paris, 1744,
582 THE cALcuLUs oF vARrATroNs rToG-IBoo
least action principle seemed to satisry this criterion because it showed that
nature was economical. Maupertuis proclaimed his principle to be a universal
law of nature and the fust scientific proof of the existence of God. Euler,
who had corresponded with Maupertuis on this subject between 1740 and
1744, agreed with Maupertuis that God must have constructed the universe
in accordance with some such basic principle and that the existence ofsuch
a principle evidenced the hand of God.
In the second appendix to his 1744 book Euler formulated the Principle
of Least Action as an exact dynamical theorem' He limited himself to the
motion of a single particle moving along plane curves. Moreover, he supposed
that the speed is dependent upon position or, in modern terms, that the
force is derivable from a potential. Whereas Maupertuis wrote
mtts : min.,
Euler wrote
alods:0,
by which he meant that the rate of change of the integral for a change in
the path must be zero. He also wrote that, since ds : tt dt,
oltPdt:o.
J
Just what Euler meant by the rate of change of the integral was still vague
here even though he applied the principle correctly in specific problems by
using his technique of the calculus of variations. At least he showed that
Maupertuis's action was least for motions along plane curves.
Euler went further than Maupertuis in believing that all natural
phenomena behave so as to maximize or minimize some function, so that
the basic physical principles should be expressed to the effect that some
function is maximized or minimized' In particular this should be true in
dynamics, which studies the motions of bodies propelled by forces. Euler
was not too Iiar from the truth.
+. Tlu Methodology oJ Lagrange

Euler's work attracted the attention of Lagrange, who began to concern
himself with problems of the calculus of variations in 1750 when he was
nineteen. He discarded the geometric-analytic arguments of the Bernoullis
and Euler and introduced purely analytical methods. In 1755 he obtained
a general procedure, systematic and uniform for a wide variety of problems,
and worked on it for several years' His famous publication on the subject
was the " Essai d'une nouvelle m6thode pour d6terminer les maxima et les
minima des formules int6grales inddfinies." 17 In a Ietter to Euler of August
17. Misc. Taur.,2, 1760161,173-95, pub. 1762 : (Euares, 1,333-62.
THE METHODOLOGY OF LAGRANGE sB3
),i t) + d/(r)
Figure 24.5
1755 he described the method, which he termed the method of variations,

but which Euler in a PaPer presented to the Berlin Academy in I 75618
named the calculus of variations.

Let us note Lagrange's method for the basic problem of the calculus
of variations, namely, to minimize or maximize the integral
(6) .t : !*f{r,t,fl d*,
where y(x) is to be determined. One of Lagrange's innovations was not to

vary individual ordinates of the minimizing or maximizing curve y(*) but
to introduce new curves running between the endpoints (xr,y1) and (xr,gr)'
These new curves (Fig. 24.5) were rePresented by Lagrange in the form
y(*) + Dy(x), the 5 being a special symbol introduced by Lagrange to
indicate a variation of the entire curue y(x). The introduction ofa new curve
in the integrand of (6) of course changes the value of J' The increment in
.I, which we shall denote by AJ, is then
LJ : I"'{f(*,y * 6!,a' + 6v') -f(x,s,v')}dx.

Now Lagrange regards if as a function of three independent variables, but
since x is notihanled, the integrand can be expanded by means of Taylor's
theorem applied to a function of two variables. The expansion gives first
degree terms in 6y and 6y', second degree terms in these increments, and
so forth. Lagrange then writes
(7) Ar:6r+|av+fiav+"'
where 5J indicates the integral of first degree terms in Ey and 6y', ELI
indicates the integral of the second degree terms, and so forth' Thus
v : Jxr
l*' U, sg + f,,. sg,) dx
6'J : I-"
{f,,(6v)' + 2f"",(sil':,/) + 1"."'(s!')'\ d*.
18. " Elementa Calculi Variationum," .Voui Comm. Acad, Sci' Pettop', l0' 1764, 5l-93,
pub. 1766 : O?cra, (l),25, 14l-76.
584 THE CALCULUS OF VARTATIONS I TOO-I8OO
5J is called the fust variation of J; 62J, the second variation; and so

forth.
Lagrange now argues that the value of 6J, since it contains the first
order terms in the small variations 6y and 3y', dominates the right side of (7),
so that when 5J is positive or negative AJ will be positive or negative. But
at a maximum or minimum ofJ, AJmust have the same sign, as in the case
of ordinary maxima and minima of a function;f(*) of one variable, so that
for g(x) to be a maximizing function, 5J must be 0. Moreover, Lagrange
says,
(8) 6y' : d(6v)

dx'
.
that is, the order of the operations d and 6 can be interchanged. This is
correct, though the reason was not clear to Lagrange's contemporaries
and Euler clarified it later. [It is easily seen to be correct ilwe write y + 3y
asg t n(x), where n(.r) is the variation ofy(r). Then 69 : y + n(x) - g :
z(x) and 6y' : C' + n'(x) - S' : n'(x). But z'(x) : dn(x)ldx : d(iy)ldx.l
Using (B) Lagrange writes the first variation as
rr: j_, ff,u *1",flaa]*

Integrating the second term by parts and using the fact that Ey must vanish
at x, and at x, yields
(e) rr: j", (t* - (*n) u) *
Now 5J must be 0 for every variation Ey. Hence Lagrange concludes that
the coefficient of Ey must be 0,1e or that
(10) r"-!h(-f,,):o.
Thus Lagrange arrived at the same ordinary differential equation for
y(*) that Euler had obtained. Lagrange's method of deriving (10) (except
for his use of differentials) and even his notation are used today. Of course,
(10) is a necessary condition on y(x) but not sumcient.
In this paper of 1760/61 Lagrange also deduced for the first time
end-conditions that must be satisfied by a minimizing curve for problems
with variable endpoints. He found the transversality conditions that must
hold at the intersections of the minimizing curve with the fixed curves or
19. The fact that the coefficient ofDy must be 0 was intuitively accepted or incorrectly
proven by every writer on the subject for one hundred years after Lagrange's work.
Even Cauchy's proof was i4adequate. The first correct proof was given by Pierre FridCric
Sarrus (1798-1861) (M,in. ditcrs Sauans, (2), 10, 1848, l-128). The result is now known
as the fundamental lemma of the calculus ofvariations.
TI{E METIIODOLOGY OF LAGRANGE
t:fQ)
surfaces on which the endpoints of the comparison curves are allowed to

vary (Fig.24.6).
Though much more remains to be said about maximizing and minimiz-
ing integrals of the form (6), historically the next steP, made by Lagrange
in his 1 760/61 paper and in a following one,20 was to consider problems
leading to multiple integrals. The integral to be maximized or minimized
is of the form
(1 1) t : !1ru,u, z, p, q) dx dy
wherein z is a function of x and y, p : 0 z I 0x, and q : 0 z | 0y. The integration
is over some area in the *y-plane' The problem, then, is to find the function
z(x, y) that maximizes or minimizes the value of.L One of the most important
problems that comes under this class of double integrals is to find the surliace
of least area among all surfaces whose boundary is fixed in some way. Thus
one might be given two closed non-intersecting curves in space and seek
the surface of minimum area bounded by these two curves' As a special
case of the minimal surface problem, the two curves can be circles parallel
to the y z-plane (Fig.2a.7) and with centers on the x-axis. Then the possible
minimal surfaces are ngcessarily surfaces of revolution bounded by the two
curves and the problem is to find the surface of revolution of minimum area.
This last problem, as we noted above, had already been solved by Euler in
1744. However, this special case ofa surface of revolution can be treated
by the theory applicable to the integral (11).
By a method similar to the one he had used for the simpler integral (6),
Lagrange obtained the differential equation that the function z(*,y)
minimizing (ll) must satisfy. If we use the common notation
0z 0z 022 022 022
s, @:
T*: P, q: l, A*,:',
-0x0y: "
20. Misc. Taur., 4, 1766169 : CEuures,2, 3743.
586 THE cALcuLUs oF vARrATroNs r Too-r8oo
then the equation is

(12) .Rr *,S.r + Tt: U
wherein X, S, ?,, and U are functions of *, y, z, p, and q. This nonlinear
second order partial differential equation, called the equation of Monge,
is not easy to solve; equations of this form had been the subject of research
from the days of Euler onward (Chap. 22, sec, 7).
In the case of the minimal sudace problem, the integral (11) becomes
(13) jj t, * po + q')'t'd* dy,

and for this special class of problems the partial diflerential equation (12)
becomes
(14) (l + fe)/ - 2!qs + (l +y'z), : 0.
This equation was given by Lagrange in his 1760/61 paper (though not
quite in this form) and is a major analytical result in the theory of minimal
surfaces. Geometrically, as Meusnier pointed out in a paper of 1785,21 this
partial differential equation expresses the fact that at any point on the
minimizing surface the principal radii of curvature are equal and opposite
or that the mean curvature, that is, the average of the principal curvatures,
is zero.
fn a hter paper (177O)22 r.agrange also considered single and multiple
integrals in which higher derivatives than the first ones appear in the inte-
grand. This topic has been well developed since Lagrange's time and is
now standard material in the calculus of variations, However, since the
principles are not basically different from the cases already considered, we
shall not go into this extension of the subject. The content of Lagrange's
papen on the calculus ofvariations is incorporated in his Micaniquz annlgtique.
The calculus ofvariations was not well understood by the contemporaries
of Lagrange and Euler. Euler explained Lagrange's method in numerous
writings and used it to re-prove a number of old results. Though he realized
that the calculus of variations was a new branch or technique, which he
says is symbolized by the new operational symbol E, he, like Lagrange,
tried to base the logic of the calculus of variations on the ordinary calculus.
Euler's idea28 was to introduce a parameter I such that the curves of the
family considered in a variations problem would vary with l, that is, for
each , of some range there would be a curvey,(r). Then, says Euler, whereas
dy : (dgldx) dx, 6y : (dyldt) dt. Hence the variation Ey is expressed by a
partial differentiation with respect to t. He then formulated the technique
21. Mim. dio*s Saaans, 10, 1785,477-45.
22. Nouo, Min. de l'Acad, de Berlin, l77O : (Euarc\ 3, 157-46.
23. Noti Comm. Acad. Sci. Parop., 16, 1771,35-70, pub. 1772 = Olcra, (l), 25, 208-35.
LAGRANGE AND LEAST ACTION 587
of the calculus of variations in terms of this new concePt of differentiation

with respect to !. His final results were, of course, the same as those already
obtained.
Euler proceeded (1779)24 to consider space curves with maximum or
minimum properties and (1780) extensions of the brachistochrone problem
when the applied force (which is gravity in the usual problem) operates in
three dimensions or when a resisting medium is present.zs
5. Lagrange and Least Action

Lagrange applied the calculus of variations to dynamics. He took over
from Euler the Principle of Least Action and became the first to exPress
the principle in concrete form, namely, that for a single particle the integral
of the product of mass, velocity, and distance taken between two fixed
points is a maximum or a minimum; that is, J na ds must be a maximum
or a minimum ficr the actual path taken by the particle. Alternatively,
since ds : o dt, ttrer, I moz dt must be a maximum or a minimum. The
quantity muz ltoday (l l2)mozl is called the kinetic energy; in Lagrange's
day it was called living force. Lagrange also asserted that the principle is
true for a collection of particles and even for extended masses, though he
was not clear on the last case.
Using the Principle of Least Action and the method of the calculus of
variations, Lagrange obtained his famous equations of motion. Let us con-
sider the case where the kinetic energy is a function of x, y, and z. Then
for a single particle the kinetic energy Iis given by
(ls) r:f,n@'+!i2+22).
Lagrange also supposed that the forces acting to cause the motion are
derivable from a potential function V, which depends otr x, y, and z, An
additional condition, then, is that 7 + Z: const.r that is, the total energy
is constant. Lagrange's action is
(16)
r;,"
and his Principle of Least Action states that this action must be a minimum
or a maximum, that is
(17) t
f' rat: o.
24, Mln, de I'Acad. des Sci. de St. Pctus., +, l8ll, 1842, pub. l8l3 : Olcra, (l),25'
293-313.
25. Mhn. de l'Acad. dx Sci. de St. Pcters., 8, l8l7/18, 17-45, pub. 1822 : Olna, (l)' 25,
314-42.
588 THE cALcuLUs oF vARTATIoNs I Too-IBoo
In a minimizing or maximizing action, even though the motion takes place

between two fixed points in space and the two fixed time values Io and lr,
the space and time variables must be varied.
By applying the method of the calculus of variations to the action
integral, Lagrange derived equations analogous to Euler's equation (2),
namely,
(lB)
*,(#)*{*:o
and the two corresponding equations with y and z. These equations are the
equivalent of Newton's second law of motion.
Lagrange made the further step of introducing what are now called
generalized coordinates. That is, in place of rectangular coordinates one
may use polar coordinates or, in fact, any set of coordinates qL, q2, qs,
which are needed to fix the positioh of the particle (or extended mass).
Then
: x(qb q2, qs)
tc
! : !(4b 82, Qs)
z : z(Qb 42, Q;,
where the 4r are now functions of t. In terms of the new coordinates, 7
becomes a function of the 4, and {, while Z becomes a function of the q,.
Then the equations (lB) become
(le)
*,(#\ - T,* Yq,: o, i : 1,2,3'
This is a set of 3 simultaneous second order ordinary differential equations
in the 91. They are the Euler (characteristic) equations for the action integral.
Il z coordinates are needed to fix the position of the moving object, for
example, 2 particles require 6 coordinates, then equations (19) are replaced
by z equations.26
These generalized coordinates need not have either geometrical or
physical significance. One speaksofthem today as coordinates in a configura-
tion space and then the qr(t) are the equations of a path in configuration
space. Thus Lagrange recognized that the variational principle, namely,
that the action must be a minimum or maximum, can be used with any set
26. Lagrange is explicit that the number ofvariables in Iandin Zare the number required
to determine the position of the mechanical system. Thus if there are ly' independent
particles and each requires three coordinates (*r, !r, zr) to describe its path in sPace, then
3N coordinates are required. In this case there will be 3iy' coordinates 41, 3-l[ equations
relating the Cartesian coordinates to the 4, and 3iy' equations (19). The number of
independent coordinates or the number ofdegrees offreedom, as physicists put it, depends
on the system being treated and on the constraints in the motion.
THE SECOND VARTATTON 589
of coordinates and the Lagrangian equations of motion (19) are invariant

in form with respect to any coordinate transformation.
Lagrange's Principle, though it amounts to Newton's second law of
motion, has several advantages over Newton's formulation. First of all,
any convenient coordinate system is already, so to speak, built into the
formulation. Secondly, it is easier to handle problems with constraints on
the motion. Thirdly, instead of a series of separate differential equations,
which may be numerous if many particles are involved, there is-to start
with, at least----one principle from which the differential equations follow'
Finally, though his principle supPoses a knowledge of the kinetic and
potential energies ofa problem, it does not require a knowledge of the forces
acting. With his principle Lagrange deduced major laws of mechanics and
solved new problems, though it lvas not broad enough to include all the
problems mechanics deals with. His work on the action principle is fully
treated in his Micanique analgtique. He also started the movement to deduce
the laws of other branches of physics from variational principles that would
be the analogues of least action. He himself gave a variational principle
for a broad class of hydrodynamical problems. This subject will be resumed
in our study of the nineteenth-century work.
From the mathematical standpoint Lagrange's work on least action
gave major importance to the calculus of variations. In particular Lagrange
had derived the Euler equations for an integral whose integrand contains
one independent variable but several dependent variables and their deriva-
tives. This is an extension of the original calculus of variations problem,
which contains only one dependent variable and its derivative. In this
extended case the Euler equations are a system of second order ordinary
differential equations in the 9,.
6. The Second Variation

The Euler differential equation, as. Euler and Lagrange realized, is only a
necessary condition for the solution to furnish a maximum or a minimum.
They used the diflerential equation to find the solution and then decided on
intuitive or physical grounds whether it furnished a maximum or a minimum.
The role of the Euler equation is entirely analogous to the condition
-f '(r)
: 0 in the ordinary calculus. A value of * that maximizes or minimizes
y : -f(x) must satisfy;f'(r) : 0, but the converse is not necessarily true.
The question of what additional conditions a solution of the Euler
equation must satisfy to actually furnish a maximum or a minimum value
of an integral depending on y(r) was tackled unsuccessfully by Laplace in
1782. It was then taken up by Legendre in 1786.'? Guided by the fact that
27. Hist. de I'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1786' 7-37, pub. 1788.
5go THE CALCULUS OF VARTATTONS r TOO-rBOO
in the ordinary calculus the sign ofJ'@) at a value ofx for which;['(r) : 0
determines whether/(*) has a maximum or a minimum, Legendre considered
the second variation 62J, recast its form, and concluded that J is a maximum
for the curve y(x) which satisfies Euler's equation and passes through
(*0, yo) and (xr,yr) provided. that fo,r, < 0 at each x along y(x). Likewise,
J is a minimum for a y(r) satisfying the first two conditions provided that
Ju,r, > 0 at each x along y(x). Legendre then extended this result to more
general integrals than (6). However, Legendre realized in 1787 that the
condition on;f,,r, was just a necessary condition on y(r) in order that it
be a maximizing or minimizing curve. The problem of finding sufficient
conditions that a curve y(*) maximize or minimize an integral such as (6)
was not solved in the eighteenth century.
Bi.bliograplry
Bernoulli, James: Opcra,2 vob., 1744, reprint by Birkhaiiser, 1968.
Bernoulli, John: OPcra Omnia,,4 vols., 1742, Georg Olms (reprint), 1968.
Bliss, Gilbert A.z Thc Cahulus of Vaiations, Open Court, 1925.
"The Evolution of Problems in the Calculus of Variationsr" Amer. Math.
Monthls, 43, 1936, 59M09.
Cantor, Moritz: Voilesungcn ilber Geschichtc der Mathematik, B. G. Teubner, 1898
zrd 1924, Vol. 3, Chap. ll7, znd Vol. 4, 1066-74.
Caratheodory, C. : Introduction to Series ( I ), Vol. 24 of Euler's Opera Omnia,
viii-lxii, Orell Fiissli, 1952. AIso in C. Caratheodory: Gesammeile mathematische
ScbiJtea, C. H. Beck, 1957, Vol. 5, pp. 107-74.
Darboux, Gaston: LcAons sw la tMoric ginbale des surJaces,2nd ed., Gauthier-Villars,
1914, Vol. l, Book III, Chaps. l-2.
Euler, Leonhard z Opcra Omnia, (l), Vols. 24-25, Orcll Fiissli, 1952.
Hofmann, Joseph E. : "Uber Jakob Bernoullis Beitriige zur Infinitesimalmathe-
lmatik," L'Enscignemat Mathimatiqw, (2), 2, 1956, 6l-17l; published
separately by Institut de mathdmatiques, Geneva, 1957.
Huke, Aline: An Histoical and Citical Study of tlu Fundatuntal Itmma in the Calculus of
Vaiations, University of Chicago Contributions to the Calculus of Variations,
University of Chicago Press, Vol, l, 1930, pp. 45-160.
Lagrange, Joseph-Louis: CEuares de Lagrangc, Gauthier-Villars, 1867-69, relevant
papers in Vols. l-3.
Micanique analgti.que, 2 vols., 4th ed., Gauthier-Villars, 1889.
Lecat, Maurice: Bibliographb du calcul des tariatians depuis hs oiginos.iusqu'i 1850,
Gand, 1916.
Montucla, f. F.:, Histoire des mathimatiquzs, 1802, Albert Blanchard (reprint),
1960, Vol. 3, 643-58.
Porter, Thomas Isaac: "A History of the Classical Isoperimetric Problem,"
Uniocrsitg of Chicago Conlribulians lo lhe Calculus of Varialioru, University of
Chicago Press, 1933, Vol.2, pp.475-517.
Smith, David E.: A Source Book in Mathcmatdcs, Dover (reprint), 1959, pp. 6,14-55.
BTBLTOCRAPITY 59r
Struih D.!.: A Souru Book i.n Mathcnatics, 1200-1800, Harvard University Press,
1969, pp. 391-413.
Todhunter, Isaac: A History of tlw Cahulas of Variations during tlu Ninetcenth Century,
1861, Chelsea (reprint), 1962.
Woodhouse, Robert: A History qf the Calculus of Vaiations i.n the Eighteenth Ccntury,
1810, Chelsea (repdnt), 1964.
25
Algebra in the Eighteenth Century
I present higher analysis as it was in ie childhood but you

are bringing it to man's estate.
JOHN BERNOULLI, IN A LETTER TO EULER
l. Status of the Number Systern

Though algebra and analysis were hardly distinguished from each other in
the eighteenth century because the significance of the limit concePt was still
obscure, it is desirable from our modern point ol view to seParate the two
fields of activity. In the seventeenth century, algebra was a major center of
interest; in the eighteenth century it became subordinate to analysis, and
except in the theory of numbers the motivation for work in it came largely
from analysis,
Since the basis of algebra is the number system, let us note the status of
this subject. By I 700 all of the familiar members of the system-whole
numbers, fractions, irrationals, and negative and complex numbers-were
known. However, opposition to the newer types of numbers was expressed
throughout the century. Typical are the objections of the English mathe-
matician Baron Francis MasBres (1731-1824), a Fellow of Clare College in
Cambridge and a member of the Royal Society. Masdres, who did write
acceptable papers in mathematics and a substantial treatise on the theory of
life insurance, published in 1759 his Dissertation on the Use of the Negatit;e Sign
in Algcbra. He shows how to avoid negative numbers (except to indicate the
subtraction ofa larger quantity from a smaller one), and especially negative
roots, by carefully segregating the types of quadratic equations so that those
with negative roots are considered separately; and, of course, the negative
roots are to be rejected. He does the same with cubics. Then he says of
negative roots,
.. . I am able to judge, to puzzle the whole

they serve only, as far as
doctrine ofequations, and to render obscure and mysterious things that
are in their own nature exceeding plain and simple. . . . It were to be
wished therefore that negative roots had never been admitted into
592
STATUS OF TIIE NU}iiBER SYSTEM s93
algebra or were again discarded from it: for if this were done, there is
good reason to imagine, the objections which many learned and in-
genious men now make to algebraic computations, as being obscure
and perplexed with almost unintelligible notions, would be thereby
removed; it being certain that Algebra, or universal arithmetic, is, in
its own nature, a science no less simple, clear, and capable of demon-
stration, than geometry.
Certainly negative numbers were not really well understood until
modern times. Euler, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, still believed
that negative numbers were greater than m. He also argued that ( - I ) .
(-l) : *l because the product must be +l or -l and since l.(-l):
-1, then (-l).(-l) : +1. Carnot, the noted French geometer, thought
the use of negative numbers led to erroneous conclusions. As late as 1831
Augustus De Morgan (1806-71), professor of mathematics at University
College, London, and a famous mathematical logician and contributor to
algebra, in his On the Study and Difuulties oJ Mathetnatias, said,"The imaginary
expression | - a and, the negative expression - 6 have this resemblance, that
either of them occurring as the solution of a problem indicates some in-
consistency or absurdity. As far as real meaning is concerned, both are
equally imaginary, since 0 - a is as inconceivable as \/=."
De Morgan illustrated this by means of a problem. A father is 56; his
son is 29. When will the father be twice as old as the son ? He solves 56 * x :
2(29 + x) and obtains x : -2. Thus the result, he says, is absurd. But, he
continues, if we change tc to -x and solve 56 - x : 2(29 - x), we get x : 2.
He concludes that we phrased the original problem wrongly and thus were
led to the unacceptable negative answer. De Morgan insisted that it was
absurd to consider numbers less than zero.
Though nothing was done in the eighteenth century to clariry the
concept of irrational numbers, some progress was made in this subject. In
1737 Euler showed, substantially, that e and a2 are irrational and Lambert
showed that z is irrational (Chap. 20, sec. 6). The work on the irrationality
ofzlwas motivated largely by the desire to solve the problem ofsquaring the
circle. Legendre's conjecture that r rnay not be a root of an algebraic
equation with rational coefficients led to a distinction between types of
irrationals. Any root, real or complex, of any algebraic (polynomial) equation
with rational coefficients is called an algebraic number. Thus the roots of
aoxn a arxn-L +... + aa-tx I ao : 0,
where the a, are rational numbers, are called algebraic numbers, Conse-
quently, every rational number and some irrationals are algebraic numbers,
for any rational number c is a root of x - c: 0, and l/i i" u root of
x2 - 2 :0. Those numbers that are not algebraic are called transcendental
because, as Euler put it, "they transcend the power of algebraic methods."
594 ALGEBRA IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
This distinction between algebraic and transcendental numbers was recog-

nized by Euler at least as early as 1744. He conjectured that the logarithm
to a rational base ofa rational number must be either rational or transcenden-
tal. However, no number was known to be transcendental in the eighteenth
century and the problem of showing that there are transcendental numbers
remained open.
Complex numbers were more of a bane to the eighteenth-century
mathematicians, These numbers were practically ignored from their intro-
duction by Cardan until about 1700. Then (Chap. 19, sec. 3) complex
numbers were used to integrate by the method of partial fractions, which was
followed by the lengthy controversy about complex numbers and the
logarithms of negative and complex numbers. Despite his correct resolution
of the problem of the logarithms of complex numbers, neither Euler nor the
other mathematicians were clear about these numbers.
Euler tried to understand what complex numbers really are, and in his
Volkwtdigc Anlcitung zur Algebra (Complete Introduction to Algebra),
which 6rst appeared in Russian in I 768-69 and in German in 1770 and is the
bcst algebra text of the eighteenth century, says,
Because all concgivable numbers are either greater than zero or less
than 0 or equal to 0, then it is clear that the square roots ofnegative
numbers cannot be included among the possible numbers [real num-
bers]. Corsequently we must say that these are impossible numbers.
ADd this circumstance leads us to the concept of such numbers, which
by their nature are impossible, and ordinarily are called imaginary or
fancied numbers, because they exist only in the imagination.
Euler made mistakes with complex numbers. In this Algebra he writes

"t/=1.,1/--a: {-+:2 because \/;\/6: \/;b. IIe also gives i':
0.2078795763 but misses other values of this quantity. He gave this number
originally in a letter to Goldbach of 1746 and also in his article of 1749 on
the controversy between Leibniz and John Bernoulli (Chap. 19, sec. 3).
Though he calls complex numbers impossible numbers, Euler says they are
of use. The use he has in mind occurs when we tackle problems about which
we do not know whether there is or is not an answer. Thus if we are asked to
sepnrate 12 into two parts whose product is 40, we would find that the parts
are 6 + {14 and, 6 - '\/=. Thereby, he says, we recognize that the
problem cannot be solved.
Some positive steps beyond Euler's correct conclusion on the logarithms
of complex numbers were made, but their influence on the eighteenth
century was limited. In lis Algebra (1685, Chaps. 66_69), John Wallis
showed how to represent geometrically the complex roots of a quadratic
equation with real coemcients. Wallis said, in effect, that complex numbers
are no more absurd than negative numbers; and since the latter can be
STATUS OF TIIE NI'MBER SYSTEM 595
represented on a direct line, it should be possible to represent complex

numbers in the plane. He started with an axis on which real numbers were
marked out in relation to an origin; a distance from the origin along this
axis represented the real part ofthe root, the distance being measured in the
positive or negative direction of the axis according as this part of the root
was positive or negative. From the point on the real axis thus determined, a
line was drawn perpendicular to the axis of reals whose length represented
the number which, multiplied by /J, gave the imaginary part of the root,
the line being drawn in one direction or the opposite according as the number
was positive or negative. (He failed to introduce they-axis itselfas the axis of
imaginaries.) Wallis then gave a geometrical construction for the roots of
ax2 + bx { c : 0 when the roots are real and when they are complex. His
work was correct, but it was not a useful representation of x * ig for other
purposes. There were other attempts to represent complex numbers geo-
metrically in the eighteenth century, but they were not broadly useful.
Nor did geometrical representation at this time make complex numbers
more acceptable.
Early in the century most mathematicians believed that different roots of
complex numbers would introduce different types or orders of complex
numbers and that there might be ideal roots whose nature they could not
specify but which might somehow be calculated. But d'Alembert, in his
prize work Rifexions sur la cause ginhale d.es aents (1747), affirmed that every
expression built up from complex numbers by means of algebraic operations
(in which he included raising to an arbitrary power), is a complex number of
theform I + B \/=. The one difficulty he had in proving this assertion was
the case of (a * Di)o+rtt. ,'. demonstration of this fact had to be mended
by Euler, Lagrange, and others. ln the Encyclopidie, d'Alembert maintained
a discrete silence on complex numbers.
Throughout the eighteenth century complex numbers were used
effectively enough for mathematicians to acquire some confidence in them
(Chap. 19, sec. 3; Chap. 27, sec.2). Where used in intermediate stages of
mathematical arguments, the results proved to be correct; this fact had
telling effect. Yet there were doubts as to the validity of the arguments and
often even of the results.
In 1799 Gauss gave his first proof of the fundamental theorem of
algebra, and since this necessarily depended on the recognition of complex
numbers, Gauss solidified the position of these numbers. The nineteenth
century then plunged forward boldly with complex functions. But even long
after this theory was developed and employed in hydrodynamics, the Cam-
bridge University professors preserved "an invincible repulsion to the
objectionable /J, cu-b.ous devices being adopted to avoid its occurrence
or use wherever possible."
The general attitude toward complex numbers even as late as l83l may
596 ALGEBRA IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
be learned from De Morgan's book Oz the Study and Dffuulties of Mathematics.

He says that this book contains nothing that could not be found in the best
works then in use at Oxford and Cambridge. Turning to complex numbers,
he states,
We have shown the symbol /--a to be void of meaning, or rather
self-contradictory and absurd. Nevertheless, by means ofsuch symbols,
a part of algebra is established which is of great utility. It depends
upon the fact, which must be verified by experience, that the common
rules ofalgebra may be applied to these expressions [complex numbers]
without leading to any false results. An appeal to experience of this
nature appears to be contrary to the first principles laid down at the
beginning of this work. We cannot deny that it is so in reality, but it
must be recollected that this is but a small and isolated part of an
immense subject, to all other branches of which these principles apply
in their fullest extent.
The " principles " he refers to are that mathematical truths should be
derived by deductive reasoning from axioms.
He then compares negative roots and complex roots.
There is, then, this distinct difference between the negative and the
imaginary result. When the answer to a problem is negative, by chang-
ing the sign of r in the equation which produced that result, we may
either discover an error in the method of forming that equation or
show that the question of the problem is too limited, and may be
extended so as to admit of a satisfactory answer. When the answer to a
problem is imaginary this is not the case . . . , We are not advocates
for stopping the progress of the student by entering fully into all the
arguments for and against such questions, as the use of negative
quantities, etc., which he could not understand, and which are incon-
clusive on both sides; but he might be made aware that a difficulty
does exist, the nature of which might be pointed out to him, and he
might then, by the consideration of a sufficient number of examples,
treated separately, acquire confidence in the results to which the rules
lead.
By the time De Morgan wrote the above lines, the concePts of complex
numbers and complex functions were well on the way to clarification. But
the diffusion of the new knowledge was slow. Certainly throughout the
eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth centuries the meaning of
complex numbers was debated hotly. All the arguments of John Bernoulli,
d'Alembert, and Euler were continually rehashed. Even twentieth-century
textbooks on trigonometry supplemented presentations that employed
complex numbers by proofs not involving V=I.
We should note here another point whose significance is almost in
inverse proportion to the conciseness with which it can be stated: In the
THE THEORY OF EqUATTONS 597
eighteenth century no one worried about the logic of the real or complex
number systems. What Euclid had done in Book V of the E/aments to establish
the properties of incommensurable magnitudes was disregarded. That this
exposition had been tied to geometry, whereas by now arithmetic and alge-
bra were independent of geometry, accounts in part for this disregard.
Moreover this logical development, even if suitably modified to free it ol
geometry, could not establish the logical foundations of negative and complex
numbers; and this fact too may have caused mathematicians to desist from
any attempt to found the number system rigorously. Finally, the century
was concerned primarily to use mathematics in science, and since the rules
of operation were intuitively secure at least for real numbers no one really
worried about the foundations. Typical is the statement of d'Alembert in his
article on negative numbers in t}re Eruyclopidie. The article is not at all clear
and d'Alembert concludes that "the algebraic rules of operation with nega-
tive numbers are generally admitted by everyone and acknowledged as
exact, whatever idea we may have about these quantities." The various
types of numbers, never properly introduced to the world, nevertheless
gained a firmer place in the eighteenth-century mathematical community.
2. The Theory of Equations

One of the investigations continued from the seventeenth century with
hardly a break was the solution of polynomial equations. The subject is
fundamental in mathematics and so the interest in obtaining better methods
of solving equations of any degree, getting better methods of approximating
roots of equations, and completing the theory-in particular by proving
that every zth degree polynomial equation has z roots-was natural. In
addition, the use of the method of partial fractions for integration raised the
question of whether any polynomial with real coefficients can be decom-
posed into a product of linear factors or a product of linear and quadratic
factors with real coefficients to avoid the use of complex numbers.
As we saw in Chapter 19 (sec. 4), Leibniz did not believe that every
polynomial with real coefficients could be decomposed into linear and
quadratic factors with real coefficients. Euler took the correct position. In a
Ietter to Nicholas Bernoulli ( l687-1 759) of October l, 1742, Euler affirmed
without proof that a polynomial of arbitrary degree with real coefficients
could be so expressed. Nicholas did not believe the assertion to be correct and
gave the example of
xa_4xs+2x2+4fr+4
with the zeroes I +\/2+t/-s, t -\/2+\/-3, I +\/2-\/-3,
| - \/ 2 - t/ -5, which he said contradicts Euler's assertion. On Decem-
ber 15, 1742, Euler, writing to Goldbach (Fuss, Vol. l, 169-71), pointed
598 ALGEBRA IN TI{E EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
out that complex roots occur in conjugate pairs, so that the product
of *- (a+bt/-t1 and x- (a-bt/--t!, wherein a+bl-l and
a - bli are a conjugate pair, gives a quadratic expression with real
coefficients. Euler then showed that this was true for Bernoulli's example' But
Goldbach, too, rejected the idea that every polynomial with real coefficients
can be factored into real factors and gave the example xa + 72x - 2O.
Euler then showed Goldbach that the latter had made a mistake and that
he (Euler) had proved his theorem for polynomials up to the sixth degree.
However, Goldbach was not convinced, because Euler did not succeed in
giving a general proof of his assertion.
The kernel ofthe problem of factoring a real polynomial into linear and
quadratic factors with real coefficients was to prove that every such poly-
nomiral had at least one real or complex root. The proof of this fact, called
the fundamental theorem of algebra, became a major goal.
Proofs offered by d'Alembert and Euler were incomplete. ln 17721
Lagrange, in a long and detailed argument, " completed " Euler's proof.
But Lagrange, Iike Euler and his contemporaries, applied freely the ordinary
properties of numbers to what were supposedly the roots without establishing
that the roots must at worst be complex numbers. Since the nature of the
roots was unknown, the proof was actually incomplete.
The first substantial proof of the fundamental theorem, though not
rigorous by modern standards, was given by Gauss in his doctoral thesis
of 1799 at Helmstddt.2 He criticized the work of d'Alembert, Euler' and
Lagrange and then gave his own proof. Gauss's method was not to calculate
a root but to demonstrate its existence. He points out that the complex roots
a * ib of P (x + ig) : 0 correspond to points (a, b) of the plane, and if
P(x + iy) : u(r, y) + ia(x, y) then (a, D) must be an intersection ol the
cnrves z : 0 and 7 : 0. By a qualitative study ofthe curves he shows that a
continuous arc of one joins the points of two distinct regions separated by
the other. Then the curvc t,l : 0 must cut the curve u : 0. The argument
was highly original. However, he depended on the graphs of these curves,
which were somewhat complicated, to show that they must cross' In this
same paper Gauss proved that the zth degree polynomial can be expressed as
a product of linear and quadratic factors with real coefficients.
Gauss gave three more proofs of the theorem. In the second proofg
he dispensed with geometrical arguments. In this proof he also showed that
the product ofthe differences ofeach two roots (which we, following Sylvester,
call the discriminant) can be expressed as a linear combination of the poly-
nomial and its derivative, so that a necessary and sufficient condition that
the polynomial and its derivative have a common root is that the discriminant
l. Noua. Mim. de I'Acad. de Balin, 1772' 222 ff. : CEuares, S, +79-516,
2. Werke,3, l-30; also reproduced in Euler, Opeta, (l)' 6, 15l-69.
3. Comm. Soc. Gott.,3, l8l4/15' lO7-42 : Werke,3,33-56,
THE THEORY OF EqUATIONS 599
vanish. However, this second proof assumed that a polynomial cannot change
signs at tu,o different values ofx without vanishing in between. The proof of
this fact lay beyond the rigor of the time'
The third proofa used in effect what we now call the Cauchy integral
theorem (Chap. 27, sec. 4).5 The fourth proofo is a variation of the first as
far as method is concerned. However, in this proof Gauss uses complex
numbers more freely because, he says, they are now common knowledge.
It is worth noting that the theorem was, in many proofs, not proved in all
generality. Gauss's first three proofs and later proofs by Cauchy, Jacobi,
and Abel assumed that the (literal) coefficients represented real numbers,
whereas the full theorem includes the case of complex coefficients. Gauss's
fourth proof did allow the coefficients of the polynomial to be complex
numbers.
Gauss's approach to the fundamental theorem of algebra inaugurated
a new approach to the entire question of mathematical existence. The Greeks
had wisely recognized that the existence of mathematical entities must be
established before theorems about them can be entertained. Their criterion
of existence was constructibility. In the more explicit formal work of the
succeeding centuries, existence was established by actually obtaining or
exhibiting the quantity in question. For example, the existence of the
solutions of a quadratic equation is established by exhibiting quantities that
satisfy the equation. But in the case of equations ofdegree higher than four,
this method is not available. Of course a proof of existence such as Gauss's
may be of no help at all in computing the object whose existence is being
established.
While the work that ultimately showed that every polynomial equation
with real coemcients has at least one root was under way, the mathematicians
also pushed hard to solve equations of degree higher than four by algebraic
processes. Leibniz and his friend Tschirnhausen were the first to make
serious efforts. LeibnizT reconsidered the irreducible case of the third degree
equation and convinced himself that one could not avoid the use of complex
numbers to solve this type. He then tackled the solution of the fifth degree
equation but without success. Tschirnhausens thought he had solved this
problem by transforming the given equation into a new one by means of a
transform ! : P(*), where P(x) is a suitable fourth degree polynomial.
4. Comm. Soc. Gott., 3, 1816 : Werkc, 3, 5944.
5. For a discussion of Gauss's third proof sce M. Bocher, " Gauss's Third Proof of the
Fundamental Theorem of Algcbra," Amr. Math. Soc., Bull., l, 1895' 205-9. A translation
of the third proof can be found in H. MeschkowsLi, Ways oJ Thoughl oJ Grcat Maiundiciotrs,
Holden-Day, 1964.
6, Abhand. dtr Ges. der Wist. zu Gott., 4, 1848150,3-34 : Werkc,3,73-102.
7. Der Brbfuechsel oon Gottfried Willulm Leibniz mit Matlumatikcm, Georg Olms (reprint),
1961, Vol. l, 547--64.
8. Acta Erud.,2, 1683,204-07.
6oo ALGEBRA IN THE EIGIITEENTH CENTURY
This transformation eliminated all but the .r5 and constant terms of the
equation. But Leibniz showed that to determine the coefficients of P(r) one
had to solve equations of degree higher than five, and so the method was
useless.
For a while the problem of solving the zth degree equation centered on
the special case ta - I :0, called the binomial equation. Cotes and De
Moivre showed, through the use of complex numbers, that the solution ofthis
problem amounts to the division of the circumference of a circle into z equal
parts. To obtain the roots by radicals (trigonometric solutions are not
necessarily algebraic) it is sufficient to consider the case ofr an odd prime,
because if n : ?m, wherep is a prime, then one can consider (r'il)e - 1 : 0.
Ifthis equation can be solved for x', then x' - A can be considered where I
is any of the roots of the preceding equation. Alexandre-Th€ophile Vander-
monde (1735-96) affirmed in a paper of l77ls that every equation ol the
form xo - I : O, where z is a prime, is solvable by radicals. However,
Vandermonde merely verified that this is so for values of n up to I l' The
decisive work on binomial equations was done by Gauss (Chap. 31, sec' 2)'
The major effort toward solving equations of degree higher than four
concentrated on the general equation, and toward this end some subsidiary
work on symmetric functions proved important. The expression r1x2 *
x2ro + xsrr is a symmetric function of xy x2, and xs because replacement
throughout of any x, by an *, and *1 by .r, leaves the entire expression un-
altered. The interest in symmetric functions arose when the seventeenth-
century algebraists noted and Newton proved that the various sums of the
products of the roots of a polynomial equation can be expressed in terms
of the coefficients. For example, for z : 3, the sum of the products taken
two at a time,
ataz+0zas+0sal
is an elementary symmetric function; and if the equation is written as
x3 - c1x2 * c2x - cr: Q,
the sum equals rr. The progress made by Vandermonde in the l77l paper
was to show that any symmetric function of the roots can be expressed in
terms of the coefficients ol the equation.
The outstanding work of the eighteenth century on the problem of the
solution of equations by radicals, after efforts by many men including Euler,lo
was by Vandermonde in the l77l paper and Lagrange, in his massive paper
11 Vandermonde's
" Rdflexions sur la r€solution alg6brique des 6quations."
9. Hist. de l'Acad, dcs Sci., Pari"s, 1771,365-416, pub. 1774.
lO. Comm, Acad. Sci. Petrop.,6, 113213,216-31, pub' 1738 : Opeta, (l)' 6' l-19 and Noai
Comn. Acad. Sci. Pebop.,9' 1762163' 70-98, pub. 1764 : Olerq (l)' 6, 170-96'
ll. Noua. Mim. de l'Acatl. de Beilin, 1770, 134-215, pub' 1772 ar'd 1771, 138-254, pub'
1773 = CEuures, 3,205-421,
THE THEORY OF EqUATTONS 6or
ideas are similar but not so extensive nor so clear. We shall therefore Present
Lagrange's version. Lagrange set himself the task of analyzing the methods
ofsolving third and fourth degree equations, to see why these worked and to
see what clue these methods might furnish for solving higher-degree equations.
For the third degree equation
(r) *3+nx+P:O
Lagrange noted that if one introduces the transformation (Chap. 13, sec. 4)
(2) Y:s - (nl3s),
one obtains the auxiliary equation
(3) lu + ?y' - n3127 :0.

This equation is also known as the reduced equation because it is quadratic
in y3 and with r: yo becomes
(4) 12 + Pr - n3127 :0.

Now we see that we can calculate the roots r, and' r, of this equation in
terms of the coefficients of the original one. But to go back to y from r we
must introduce cube roots or solve
y3-r:0.
Then if we let r,r be the particular cube root of unity (- | + \/=) 12, the
values ofy are
Y\, -+/i,.'{11, {-rr, -{-rr, -2{V,
and the distinct solutions of (1) are
*,.: {i + 4/i, xz: a{i + az{ir, xs: az{i + a{r2.

Thus the solutions of the original equation are obtained in terms of those of
the reduced equation.
Lagrange showed that the different procedures utilized by his pred-
ecessors all amount to the above method. Then he pointed out that we
should turn our attention not to * as a function of the y-values but to y as
a function ofr because it is the reduced equation that permits us to solve at
all, and the secret must lie in the relation that exPresses the solutions of the
reduced equation in terms of the solutions of the proposed equation.
Lagrange noted that each of the y-values can be written (since
I+tr+a2:O)intheform
(5) ,: +@, * ax2 * a2x")
6oz ALGEBRA IN THE EIGHTEENTII CENTURY
when x,, .rr, and rs are taken in particular orders. Examination of this
expression enables us to perceive two properties of the reduced equation in
y. First, the roots xr, xr, and x, in the expression for g are not one fixed choice
for x1, x2,, and x., and the expression is, so to speak, ambiguous. Thus any of
the three x-values can be .r1, any of the other two xr, etc. But there are 3 !
permutations of the .r's. Hence there are six values for g, and y should satisfy
a sixth degree equation. Thus the degree of the reduced equation is deter-
mined by the number of permutations of the roots in the proposed equation.
In the second place, the relation (5) also shows why one can reduce the
sixth degree reduced equation to the second degree equation. For among the
six permutations, three (including the identity) come from interchanging
all the *1 and three from interchanging just two and keeping one fixed.
But then in view of the value of <.r, the six values ofy that result are related by
(6) gr : (,)2Y2 : @Ysi Y4:o2Y5:u,YB
and by cubing,
ci:cZ:Y8, yl:yE:s3.
Another way of putting this result is that the function
(xL+@xz+etzxs)a
can take on only two values under all six permutations of x1, .rr, and *., and
this is why the equation that y satisfies proves to be a quadratic in y3. More-
over the coefficients of the sixth degree equatiot that y satisfies are rational
functions of the coefficients of the original cubic.
In the case of the general fourth degree equation in x, Lagrange con-
siders
y:xfiz+xz,t4,
This function of the four roots takes on only three distinct values under all
24 possible permutations of the four roots. Hence there should be a third
degree equation that g satisfies and the coefficients of this equation should
be rational functions of those of the original equation. These statements do
apply to the fourth degree equation.
Lagrange then takes up the general ath degree equation
(7) xn * at*n-L +. . . + an-r* * a,,: O'
The coefficients of this equation are assumed to be independent; that is,

there must be no relation holding among the a1. Then the roots must also be
independent, because if there should be a relation among the roots one
could show that this must be true of the coefficients (since, essentially, the
coemcients are symmetric functions of the roots). Thus the rl roots of the
general equation must be considered as independent variables, and each
function of them is a function of independent variables.
THE THEoRY oF EquATroNs 6o3
To understand Lagrange's plan of solution let us consider first

x2+bx*c:0.
We know two functions of the roots, namely, xr + x2 and x6:2. These are
symmetric functions, that is, they do not change when the roles of the roots
are exchanged. When a function does not change under a Permutation
performed on its variables, one says that the function admits the permuta-
tion. Thus the function xL + x2 admits the permutation of .tr and x2 but
the function r\ - xz does not.
Lagrange then demonstrated two important propositions. If a function
6kr, *r, . . ., *n) of the roots of the general equation of degree z admits all
the permutations of the *, that another function {(xr, tz, . . ., *n) admis
(and possibly other permutations that ry' does not admit), the function {
can be expressed rationally in terms of ry' and the coefficients of the general
equation (7). Thus the function x, of the quadratic admits all the permuta-
tions which 2\ - ttz admits, (there is just one, the identity) ; then
*':-b+(:'-x')'2
Lagrange's proof of this proposition also shows how to express { as a rational
function of f.
Lagrange's second proposition states: Ifa function 6(tr, ttz,.,., rn)
of the roots of the general equation does not admit all the permutations
admitted by a function {(xr, xr, . . . , x,) but takes on under the Permutations
that f admits r different values, then { is a root ofan equation of degree r
whose coefficients are rational functions of I and ofthe given general equa-
tion of degree z. This equation ofdegree r can be constructed. Thus *, - x,
does not admit all the permutations .rr + x, admits but takes on the two
values ,rr - x2 and xz - xt. Then *, - x2 is a root of a second degree
equation whose coefficients are rational functions of x, * x2 and of 6 and c.
As a matter of fact, x, - x2 is a root of
t2_(b2_4c):g
because 62 - 4ac : (*, - *r)'. With the value of this root, namely \/F4,
we can find x1 by means ofthe preceding equation for xr.
Likewise for the equation xs + pt + 4 : 0 the expression (the /)
(xL+.Dx2+a2xs)3,
where <,r : ( - I + i\/3) 12, takes on two values under the six possible
permutations of the roots, whereas xr + x2 * x3 (the ry') admits all six
permutations. I[ the two values are denoted by ,4 and B, one can show
that I and B are roots of a second degree equation whose coefficients are
6o4 ALOEBRA IN THE EIGHTEENTII CENTURY
rational inp and g (since trt + tb * r. : 91. If we solve the second degree
equation and the roots are A and B, we can then find xr, x2, and .x" from
xL * x. :6
+ x2
x1 4 ax2 + t't2t": ilV
x1 * a2*2 * <ox": f/-3.
For the fourth degree equation, Lagrange started with the function
(8) xfi2 * nsx4,
which takes on three different values under the 24 possible permutations of

the roots, whereas x1 * x2 + .rs + 14 admits all 24. Hence (B) is a root of a
third degree equation whose coefficients are rational functions of those of
the original equation. And in fact the auxiliary or reduced equation for the
general quartic is of the third degree.
For the nth degree equation with general coefficients, Lagrange's idea
was to start with a symmetric function {o of the roots which admits all z!
permutations ofthe roots. Such a function, he points out, could be x1 * *2 *
. . .*ro.Then he would choose a function /r which admits only some of the
substitutions. Suppose {r takes on under the z! permutations, say, r different
values, {1 will then be a root of an equation of degree r whose coefficients
are rational functions of{o and the coefficients olthe given general equation.
The equation ofdegree r can be constructed. Further, if {o is taken to be one
of the symmetric functions that relates roots and coefficients, then the coeffi-
cients of the equation of degree r are known entirely in terms of coefficients
of the given general equation. If the equation of degree r can be solved
algebraically, then {, will be known in terms of the coefficients of the original
equation. Then a function {, is chosen that admits only some of the permu-
tations dl admits. /, may take on, say, s different values under the substitu-
tions that {, admits. Then {2 will be a root of an equation of degree s whose
coemcients are rational functions of {, and of the coefficients of the given
general equation. The coefficients of this sth degree equation will be known
if the rth degree equation which has /, as one of its roots can be solved. If
the sth degree equation can be solved algebraically, then {2 will be known
in terms of the coefficients of the original equation.
One continues thus to 6r, 4n, .. . until the final lunction which is
chosen to be xr. Ifthen the equations of degree r, s, . , ,can be solved alge-
braically, one will know x1 in terms of the coefficients of the given general
equation. The other roots .ts, *s, . . ., r,i come out of the same process. The
equations of degree r, s, ..., are today called resolvent equations.l2
12. Lagrange used the word "resolvent" for the special forms ofthe {1 functions and not
for the equations which the {1 satisfy. Thus for the cubic equation, xr + .Dxz * <rr2xs is
one form of Lagrange's resolvent.
THE THEORY OF EqUATIONS 6o5
Lagrange's method worked for the general second, third, and fourth
degree equations. He tried to solve the fifth degree equation in this way but
found the work so difficult that he abandoned it. Whereas for the cubic he
had but to solve an equation of the second degree, for the quintic he had to
solve a sixth degree equation. Lagrange sought in vain to find a resolving
function (in his sense of the term) that would satisfy an equation of degree
less than five. Ilowever his work did not give any criterion for picking {,'s
that would satisfy algebraically solvable equations. Also his method applied
only to the general equation because his two basic propositions assume that
the roots are independent.
Lagrange was drawn to the conclusion that the solution of the general
higher-degree equation (for z > 4) by algebraic operations was likely to be
impossible. (For special equations of higher degree he offered little.) He
decided that either the problem was beyond human capacities or the nature
of the expressions for the roots must be different from all those thus far
known. Gauss, too, in his Disquisitiones of 1801, declared that the problem
could not be solved.
Lagrange's method, despite its lack of success, does give insight into the
reason for the successes when z < 4 and failures when z > 4; this insight
was capitalized on by Abel and Galois (Chap. 3l). Moreover, Lagrange's
idea that one must consider the number of values that a rational function
takes on when its variables are permuted led to the theory of permutation
or substitution groups. In fact, he had in effect the theorem that the order o[
a subgroup (the number of elements) must be a divisor of the order of the
group. In Lagrange's work, which preceded any work on grouP theory, this
result takes the form that the number r ofvalues that /, takes on is a divisor
ofn!.
Influenced by Lagrange, Paolo Ruffini (1765-1822), a mathematician,
doctor, politician, and an ardent disciple of Lagrange, made several attempts
during the years 1799 to l8l3 to prove that the general equation of degree
higher than the fourth could not be solved algebraically. ln his Teoria
generale delle equazioni,Lo Ruffini succeeded in proving by Lagrange's own
method that no resolving function (in Lagrange's sense) existed that would
satisly an equation of degree less than five. In fact he demonstrated that no
rational function of n elements existed that took on 3 or 4 values under
permutations of the z elements when z > 4. Then he boldly undertook to
prove, in his Riflessioni intorno alla soluzione dtlle equazioni algebraiclu gmeruli,la
that the algebraic solution of the general equation of degree z > 4 was
impossible. This effort was not conclusive, though at first Ruffini believed it
was correct. Ruffini used but did not prove the auxiliary theorem, now
known as Abel's theorem, that if an equation is solvable by radicals, the
!3. 1799 : Olere Mat., 1, l-324.
14. l8l3 : Olere Mat.,2, 155-268.
606 ALGEBRA IN THE BIGIITEENTH cENTURY
expressions for the roots can be given such a form that the radicals in them
are rational functions with rational coefficients of the roots of the given
equation and the roots of unity.
3. Determinants and Elimination Tluory

The study of a system of linear equations which we write today as
(e) *r:2orgn i:1,2,...,m

wherein the *, are known and the y, are the unknowns, was initiated before
1678 by Leibniz. In 1693 Leibnizrs used a systematic set of indices for the
coefficients of a system of three liner equations in two unknowns x and, y.
He eliminated the two unknowns from the system of three linear equations
and obtained a determinant, now called the resultant of the system. The
vanishing of this determinant expresses the fact that there is an x and y
satisfying all three equations.
The solution of simultaneous linear equations in two, three, and four
unknowns by the method of determinants was created by Maclaurin,
probably in 1729, arrd published in his posthumots Treatise oJ Algebra (1748).
Though not as good in notation, his rule is the one we use today and which
Cramer published in his Introduction d l'analyse des lignes courbes algibriquts
(1750). Cramer gave the rule in connection with determining the coefficients
ofthe general conic, A + By + Cx + Dgz + Exg + x2 :Q,passing through
five given points. His determinants were, as at present, the sum of the
products formed by taking one and only one element from each row and
column, with the sign of each product determined by the number ol de-
rangements of the elements from a standard order, the sign being positive if
this number was even and negative if odd. In 1764, Bezoutlo systematized
the process of determining the signs of the terms of a determinant. Given z
homogeneous linear equations in r unknowns, Bezout showed that the vanish-
ing of the determinant of the coefficients (the vanishing of the resultant) is
the condition that non-zero solutions exist.
VandermondelT was the first to give a connected and logical exposition
of the theory of determinants as such,-that is, apart from the solution of
linear equations,-though he, too, did apply them to the solution of linear
equations. He also gave a rule for expanding a determinant by using second
order minors and their complementary minors. In the sense that he con-
centrated on determinants, he is the founder of the theory.
15. Mdth. Sctuiften, 2, 229, 238-+0, 245.

16. Hist.
de I'Acad. des Sci. Paris, 1764, 288-388.
17. Mim. de I'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1772,516-32, pub. 1776.
DETERMINANTS AND ELIMINATION THEORY 6O7
In a paper of 1772, " Recherches sur le calcul int6gral et sur le systeme

du monde," 1s Laplace, who referred to Cramer's and Bezout's work,
proved some of Vandermonde's rules and generalized his method of expand-
ing determinants by using a set of minors of r rows and the complementary
minors. This method is still known by his name.le
The condition that, say, a set ofthree linear nonhomogeneous equations
in two unknowns have a common solution, the vanishing of the resultant,
also expresses the result of eliminating x and g from the three equations.
But the problem of elimination extends in other directions. Given two
polynomials
: aox^ * "'*at
-f
3:box"+"'+bn,
one can ask for the condition that f :0 and g : 0 have a common root.
Since the condition involves the fact that at least one value of r satisfying
.f : 0 also satisfies I : 0, the substitution of that value of r obtained from
.f : 0 in g : 0 should result in a condition on the a1 and Dr. This condition,
or eliminant, or resultant, was first investigated by Newton. ln his Arithmctica
(Jniaersalis he gave rules for eliminating x from two equations, which could
be of degrees two to four.
Euler, in Chapter 19 of the second volume of his Inlroductio, gives two
methods of elimination. The second is the forerunner of Bezout's multi-
plier method and was better described by Euler in a paper of 1764.20
Bezout's method proved to be the most widely accepted one, and we shall
therefore examine it. In his Cours de mathimatique (1764-69), he considers
two equations of degree z,
JQ) : anx" * an-rx"-r *.'' *ao : Q
(10)
$(x) : b"x" * bo-$n-r +"' +ro : 0.
One multiplies -f by b" and/ by an and subtracts; next one multiplies;f by

bnx I bo-1 and { by + an-r and subtracts; then;f is multiplied by
anc
b nx2 + bn--rx * bn-2and $by anx2 * an-rx ! an-2and again one subtracts I
etc. Each of the equations so obtained is of degree a - I in r. One can
regard this set of equations as a system ofz linear homogeneous equations in
the unknowns xn-t, xn-2,..., L The resultant ol this system of linear
equations, which is the determinant of the coefficients of the unknowns, is
the resultant of the original two,;f : 0 and { : 0. Bezout also gave a method
offinding the resultant when the two equations are not ofthe same degree.zl
18. Mim. de l'.4cad. des Sci., Paris, 1772, 267-376, pub l776 : CEuurcs, 8, 365-'+06.
19. Sec M. Bocher, Intruduction to Higher Algebra, Dover (reprint), 1964, p. 26.
20. Min. de l'Acad. de Berlin,20, 176+,91-104, pub. 1766: Olera, (l),6, 197-211.
21. An exposition can be found in W. S. Burnside and A. W. Panton, Thc Theory of
Equations, Dover (reprint), 1960, Vol. 2, p' 76.
608 ALGEBRA IN THE EIcTITEENTII cENTURY
Elimination theory was also applied to two equations, f(x, g) : 0 and

g@, S) : 0, of degree higher than I . The motivation was to establish the
number of common solutions of the two equations or, geometrically, to find
the number of intersections of the curves corresponding to the equations.
The outstanding method for eliminating one unknown ftoro:' f(x, g) : Q
and, g(x,y) : 0, sketched first by Bezout in a paper of 1764, was presented
by him in his Thiorit gmhalc des iquations algibriques (1779). Bezout's idea
was that by multiplying f(x, y) and e@,y) by suitable polynomials, F(.r)
and G(r) respectively, he could form
(l l) :
F(x)f(x, y) + G(x)g(x, y).
R(y)
Moreover he sought an F and G such that the degree of ,R(y) would be as
small as possible.
The question of the degree of the eliminant was also answered by
Bezout in his Tluorie (and independently by Euler in the 1764 paper). Both
gave the answer as rnz, the product of the two degrees of;f and g, and both
proved this theorem by reducing the problem to one of elimination lrom an
auxiliary set of linear equations. This product is the number of points of
intersection of the two algebraic curves. Jacobi22 and Minding23 also gave
Bezout's method of elimination for the two equations, but neither mentions
Bezout, It could be that Bezout's work was not known to them.
4. The Tluory of Numbers

The theory of numbers in the eighteenth century remained a series of
disconnected results. The most important works in the subject were Euler's
Anleitung zur Algebra (German edition, 1770) and, Legendre's Essai sur la
thiorie fus nombres (1798). The second edition appeared in 1B0B under the
title Tluiorie des nombres, and an expanded third edition in two volumes
appeared in 1830. The problems and results to be described are a small
sample of what was done.
In 1736 Euler demonstrated 2a the minor theorem of Fermat, namely,
ifla is a prime and a is prime to p, ae - a is divisible by p. Many proofs of
this same theorem were given by other men in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. In 1760 Euler generalized this theorem2s by intioducing the
/ function or totient of n; $(n) is the number of integers <n and prime to z
so that if z is a prime, $(n) is n
- l. [The notation $(n) was introduced by
Gauss.] Then Euler proved that if a is relatively prime to z,
L6(nl - 1
is divisible by z.
22. Jour. fiir Math., 15, 1836, l0l-24 : Gesam. We*e,3,297-320.
23. Jour. fiir Math.,22, 1841, 178-83.
24. Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,8, 1736, 14l-46, pub. l74l : Olera, (l),2,33-37.
25. Noai Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,8, 176011,74-104, pub. 1763 : O?erq (l), 3,531-55.
THE THEoRY oF NUMBERs 6o9
As for the famous Fermat conjecture on xn * ln : zo, Euler proved26

this was correct for n : 3 and n : 4; tt,e case n :4 had been proven by
Frinicle de Bessy. This work of Euler had to be completed by Lagrange,
Legendre, and Gauss. Legendre then proved 27 the conjecture for z : 5.
As we shall see, the history of the efforts to prove Fermat's conjecture is
extensive.
Fermat had also conjectured (Chap. 13, sec. 7) that the formula
22"+l
yielded primes for an unspecified set of values of z. This is true for n : 0, l,
2, 3, and.4. However, Euler showed in 173228 that for z : 5 this number is
not prime, one of the factors being 641. In fact the formula is now known not
to yield primes for many other values ofz, whereas no other value beyond 4
has been found for which the formula does yield primes. However, the formula
is ofinterest in that it reappears in the work of Gauss on the constructibility
of regular polygons (Chap. 31, sec.2).
A topic with many subdivisions concerns the decomposition of integers
ofvarious types into other glasses of integers. Fermat had affirmed that each
positive integer is the sum ofat most four squares (repetition ofa square as in
B : 4 + 4 is permitted if it is counted the number of times it appears).
Over a period of forty years, Euler kept trying to prove this theorem and
gave partial results.2e Using some of Euler's work, Lagrangeso proved the
theorem. Neither Euler nor Lagrange obtained the number of representa-
tions.
Euler, in the 175415 paper just referred to and in another paper in the
same journalsl proved Fermat's assertion that every prime of the form
4z + 1 is decomposable uniquely into a sum of two squares. However,
Euler's proofdid not follow the method ofdescent that Fermat had sketched
for this theorem. In another paper32 Euler also proved that every divisor of
the sum of two relatively prime squares is the sum of two squares.
Edward Waring ( 1734-98) stated, in his Meditatiotus Algebruicae (1770),
the theorem known now as "Waring's theorem," that every integer is either
a cube or the sum ofat most nine cubes; also every integer is either a fourth
power or the sum ofat most 19 fourth powers. He conjectured also that every
positive integer can be expressed as the sum of at most r ,tth powers, the r
depending upon *. These theorems were not proven by him.33
26. Algebra, Part II, becond Section,509-16 : Olera, (l), l, 48'S-89 (for n:3); and
Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop., 10, 1738, 125-'16, pub' 1747 :O\era, (l)' 2' 38-59 (for r: 4).
27. Min. de I'Acad. des Sci., Paris,6, 1823, l-60, pub. 1827.
28. Comm. Acad. Sci Petrop.,6, 173213' 103-07 : Opera, (l),2, l-5.
29. Noai Comm. Acad. Sci, Petrop.,5, 1754/5, l3-58, pub. 1760 : O?cra. (l),2,338-?2.
30. Nouo. Min. de I'Acad. dc Berlin, l, 1770, 123-33, pwb. 1772 : (Euarest 3' 189-201.
31. 5, 175415,3-13, pub. 1760 : O\era, (l),2,328-37.
32. Noui Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,4, 1752153,340, pub. 1758 : Oleru, (l) 2,295-327.
33. The general theorem was proven by David Hilbert (Math. Ann.,67, 1909,281-300).
6ro ALGEBRA IN THE EIGHTEENTI{ CENTURY
In a letter to Euler of June 7 , 1742, Christian Goldbach, a Prussian

envoy to Russia, stated without proof that every even integer is the sum of
two primes and every odd integer is either a prime or a sum of three primes.
The first part of the assertion is now known as Goldbach's hypothesis and is
still an unsolved problem. The second assertion actually follows from the first,
because if z is odd subtract any prime 1 from it. Then n - 1 is even.
Among somewhat more specialized results dealing with the decomposi-
tion ofnumbers is Euler's proofthat xa - ya and xa * ya cannot be squares.3a
Euler and Lagrange proved many of Fermat's assertions to the effect that
certain primes can be expressed in particular ways. For example Euler
proved 35 that a prime of the form 3z * I can be expressed uniquely in the
form xz I 3y2.
Amicable and perfect numbers continued to interest the mathema-
ticians. Euler36 gave 62 pairs of amicable numbers, including the three pairs
already known. Two of his pairs were incorrect. He also proved in a post-
humously published papersT the converse of Euclid's theorem: Every even
perfect number is of the form 2r-r(2e - l) where the second factor is
prime.
John Wilson (1741-93), who had been a prize student of mathematics
at Cambridge but became a lawyer and judge, stated a theorem still named
after him: For every prime 1, the quantity (p - l) ! + I is divisible by p;
in addition, if the quantity is divisible by q, then g is a prime. Waring
published the statement in his Meditationes Algebraicae and Lagrange proved
it in 1773.38
The problem of solving the equation *' - Ay' : I in integers has
already been discussed (Chap. 13, sec. 7). Euler, in a paper of 1732133,
erroneously called it Pell's equation, and the name has stuck. He became
interested in this equation because he needed its solutions to solve ax2 +
bx * c : y2 in integers; he wrote several .papers on this last theme. In 1759
Euler gave a method of solving the Pellian equation by expressing lV ut u
continued fraction.ss Euler's idea was that the values x and y which satisfy
tle equation are such that the ratlos xlg are convergents (in the sense of
continued fractions) to t/-A. He f;ailed to prove that his method always gives
solutions and that all its solutions are given by the continued fraction
34. Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop,, 10, 1738, 125-+6, pub. 1747 : Opera, (l), 2, 38-59; also in
Algcbra (1770), Part II, Ch. 13, arts, 202-8 :
O?erq (l), l, +3H3.
35. NoaiComm. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,8, 1760/1, 105-28, pub. 1763 :Opera, (l),2,556-75.
36. "De numeris amicabilibus," Opuscula uarii argumenli,2, 1750,23-107 : O?era, (l),2,
86- 162.
37. "De numeris amicabilibus," Corznr. Atith.,2, 1849,627-36: Olera losluma, l, 1862,
85-100 = Opera, (t),5, 353-65.
38. Noxt. Mim. de I'Acad. de Berlin,2, 1771,125 ff., pub. 1773 :
(Eures, 3, 425-38.
39. Noui Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop., 11,1765, 28-66, pub. 1767 :Ofiera, (l), 3, 73-l I l.
THE THEoRY oF NUMBERS 6ll
development of {4. The existence of solutions of Pell's equation was shown

in 1766 by Lagrangeao and then more simply in latbr papers'a1
Fermat had asserted that he could determine when the more general
equation x' - A!': .B was solvable in integers and that he could solve it
when solvable. The equation was solved by Lagrange in the two papers just
mentioned.
The problem of giving all integral solutions o[ the general equation
ax2 + 2bxy + cgz + 2dx + 2eY + -f : O,
where the coefficients are integers, was also tackled. Euler gave incomplete
classes ofsolutions; then Lagrangea2 gave the complete solution. In the next
volume ol the Mimoiresa3 he gave a simpler proof.
The most original and perhaps the most consequential discovery of the
eighteenth century in the theory of numbers is the law of quadratic recipro-
city. It uses the notion of quadratic remainders or residues. In the language
introduced by Euler in the 1754/55 paper and adopted by Gauss, if there
exists an r such that x2 - p is divisible by q, then p is said to be a quadratic
residue of 4; if there is no such .r, p is said to be a quadratic nonresidue ofg.
Legendre (lB0B) invented a symbol that is now used to represent either
state of affairs. The symbol is (p/q) and means the following: For any number
p and any prime q,
Qtd :1( | ifP is a quadratic residue ofg

\- ,r ifp is a quadratic nonresidue of4.
It (plq) : 0 itp divides evenly into g.
is also understood that
The law of quadratic reciprocity, in symbolic form, states that if p and
g are distinct odd primes, then
Qldklil : (- l)(e-lxc-1'i{'
This means that if the exponent ol ( - I ) is even, p is a quadratic residue of 4
and g is a quadratic residue ofp or neither is a quadratic residue ofthe other.
When the exponent is odd, which occurs whenp and g are of the form 4k + 3,
one prime will be a quadratic residue of the other but not the second of the
first.
The history of this law is detailed. Euler in a paPer of l7B3a{ gave four'
theorems and a fifth summarizing theorem that states the law of quadratic
reciprocity very clearly. However, he did not prove these theorems. The
40. Misc. Taur.,4, 1766169, 19 ff. :

CEwres, l, 671-731.
41. M,im. de I'Acad. de Beilin,23, 1767, 165-310, pub. 1769, and 24, 1768' tBl-256, pub'
l77O : CEwres, 2, 377-535 and 655-726; also in Lagrange's additions to his translation
of Euler's Algebru; see the bibliography.
42. Mhn. de l'Acad. de Berlin,23, 1767,165-310, pub. 1769 : (Eutrcs, 2,377-535.
43. 24, 1768, l8l-256, pub. 1770 : CEwres, 2, 655'726.
4*. Oluscula Analytica, l,1783,64-8+ : O?era, (l),3,497-512.
6rz ALGEBRA IN THE EIGTITEENTH CENTURY
work on this paper dates from 1772 and incorporates even earlier work.
Kronecker observed in 1875 as that the statement of the law is actually
contained in a much earlier paper by Euler.a6 However, Euler's " proof"
was based on calculations. In l7B5 Legendre announced the law indepen-
dently, though he cites another paper by Euler, in the same volume of the
Opuscula, in his own paper on the subject. His proofa? was incomplete. In his
Thnrie dcs nombresEa he again stated the law and gave another prooL How-
ever, this one, too, was incomplete, because he assumed that there are an
infinite number of primes in certain arithmetic progressions. The desire to
find what is behind the law and to derive its many implications has been a
key theme in investigations since 1800 and has led to important discoveries,
some of which we shall consider in a later chapter.
The eighteenth-century work on the theory of numbers closes with
Legendre's classic Thiorie of 1798. Though it contains a number of interesting
results, in this domain as in others (such as the subject of elliptic integrals),
Legendre made no great innovations. One could reproach him for presenting
a collection ofpropositions from which general conceptions could have been
extracted but were not. This was done by his successors.
Bibliography
Cajori, Florian: " Historical note on the Graphical Representation of Imaginaries
Before the Time of Wessel," Amer, Math, Monthly, 19, 1912, 167-71.
Cantor, Moritz: Vorhsungen ilbcr Geschichtz der Malhematik, B. G. Teubner, 1898 and
1924;Johnson Reprint Corp., 1965, Vol. 3, Chap. 107; Vol.4, pp. 153-98.
Dickson, Leonard E.: History of tht Theory of Numbers, 3 vols., Chelsea (reprint),
I95 t.
" Fermat's Last Theorem," Annals of Math., 18, 1917, l6l-87.
Euler, Leonhard : Opera Omnia, ( I ), Vols. l-5, Orell Fiissli, l9l l-44.
Volktdndigc Anhitung zur Algebrit (1770) : Opera Ornnia, (l), l.
Fuss, Paul H. von, ed.: Corrcspondance
nathimalique et physique de quelques cilibres
giomitres du XVIIIime siicle,2 vols, (1843), Johnson Reprint Corp., 1967.
Gauss, Carl Friedrich: Werke, Kilnigliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu
Gdttingen, 1876, Vol. 3, pp.3-121.
Gerhardt, C. l.: Dcr Briefwechsel aon Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz mit Mathematikern,
Mayer und Miiller, 1899; Georg Olms (reprint), 1962.
Heath, Thomas L.: Diophantus of Alexandria, 1910, Dover (reprint), 1964, pp. 267
380.
Jones, P, S. : " Complex Numbers: An Example of Recurring Themes in the
45. Werke,2,3-10.
46. Comtn. Acad. Sci. Petrop., 14, 174+146, l5l-81, pub. l75l = Olera, (l),2, 191-222.
+7, Hist. de I'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1785,465-559, pub. 1788.
48. 1798,214-26;2nd ed., 1808, 198-207.
BTBLTocRAPHY 613
Development of Mathematics," The Mathematics Teacher, 47, 1954, 106-14,

257-63,340-45.
Lagrange, Joseph-Louis: (Euares, Ga,tthier-Villars, 1867-69, Vols. l-3, relevant
papers.
: " Additions aux 6ldments d'algdbre d'Euler," Guares, Gauthier-Villars,
1877, Vol. 7, pp.5-179.
Legendre, Adrien-Marie, Thiorie dts nombres, 4th ed', 2 vols., A' Blanchard (reprint),
1955.
Muir, Thomas: The Thzory qf Determinants in the Historical Order of Deuelopment, 1906,
Dover (reprint), 1960, Vol. l, pp. l-52.
Ore, Oystein: Number Theory and its History, McGraw-Hill, 1948.
Pierpont, James: " Lagrange's Place in the Theory of Substitutions," Amer. Math.
Soc. Bulletin, l, 189415, 196-204.
*Ztr Geschichte der Gleichung des V. Grades (bis 1858)," Monatslufte Jiir
Mathematik und Plrysik,6, 1895, 15-68'
Smith,
-' H. J. S.: Repoil on the Theory of Numbers, 1867, Chelsea (reprint), 1965; also
in Vol, 2 of the Collected. Mathematical Papers of H. J. S. Snith, 1894, Chelsea
(reprint), 1965.
Smith, David Eugene: A Source Book in Mathematics, 1929, Dover (reprint), 1959,
Vol. l, relevant selections. One of the selections is an English translation of
Gauss's second proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra.
Struik, D. f .: A in Mathematics, 1200-1800, Harvard University Press,
Source Book
1969, pp. 26-54, 59-122.
Vandiver, H. S. : " Fermat's Last Theorem," Amer. Math. Monthly,53, 19'r'6, 555-78.
Whiteside, Derek T. : The Mathematical Works of Isaac Newton, Johnson Reprint
Corp., 1967, Vol. 2, pp.3-134. This section contains Newton's Uniaersal
Arithmetic in English.
Wussing, H. L.: Dic Genesis der abstrakten Gruppenbcgrffis, VEB Deutscher Verlag
der Wissenschaften, 1969.
26
Mathematics as of r8oo
When we cannot use the compass of mathematics or the torch

of experience . . . it is certain that we cannot take a single step
forward. .lr'OLTAIRE
l. Tlu Rise oJ Analysis

If the seventeenth century has correctly been called the century of genius,
then the eighteenth may be called the century ofthe ingenious. Though both
centuries were prolific, the eighteenth-century men, without introducing
any concept as original and as fundamental as the calculus, but by exercising
virtuosity in technique, exploited and advanced the power of the calculus
to produce what are now major branches: infinite series, ordinary and
partial differential equations, differential geometry, and the calculus of
variations. In extending the calculus to these several areas, they built what
is now the most extensive domain of mathematics, which we call analysis
(though the word now includes a couple of other branches upon which the
eighteenth-century men barely touched). The progress in coordinate geom-
etry and algebra, on the other hand, was hardly more than a minor
extension of what the seventeenth century had initiated. Even the major
problem of algebra, the solution of the zth degree equation, received atten-
tion because it was needed fior analysis, as for example, in integration by the
method of partial fractions.
During the first third or so of the century, geometrical methods were
used freely; but Euler and Lagrange, in particular, recognizing the greater
effectiveness of analytic methods, deliberately and gradually replaced
geometrical arguments by analytic ones. Euler's many texts showed how
analysis could be used. Toward the end of the century Monge did revive
pure geometry, though he used it largely to give intuitive meaning and
guidance to the work in analysis. Monge is often referred to as a geometer,
but this is because, working at a time when geometry had dried up, he put
new life into it by showing its importance, at least for the purposes just
described. In fact, in a paper published in 1786, he implicitly attached
greater importance to analysis, when he observed that geometry could make
progress because analysis could be used to study it. He, as well as the others,
did not, in the main, look for new geometrical ideas. The primary interest
and the end results were in analytical work.
6r4
THE RrsE oF ANALYSn 615
The classic statement of the importance ol analysis was made by

Lagrange in his Micanique analytique ' He writes in his preface,
We already have various treatises on Mechanics but the plan of this
one is entirely new. I have set myself the problem of reducing this
science Imechanics], and the art of solving the problems appertaining
to it, to general formulas whose simple development gives all the
equations necessary for the solutions of each problem. . . . No diagrams
will be found in this work. The methods which I expound in it demand
neither constructions nor geometrical or mechanical reasonings, but
solely algebraic [analytic] operations subjected to a uniform and
regular procedure. Those who like analysis will be pleased to see
mechanics become a new branch of it, and will be obliged to me for
having extended its domain.
Laplace, too, stressed the power of analysis. ln his Exposition du systi,ne
du monde he says,
The algebraic analysis soon makes us forget the main object [of our
researches] by focusing our attention on abstract combinations and it
is only at the end that we return to the original objective. But in
abandoning oneself to the operations of analysis, one is led by the
generality of this method and the inestimable advantage of trans-
forming the reasoning by mechanical procedures to results often
inaccessible to geometry. Such is the fecundity of the analysis that it
suffices to translate into this universal language particular truths in
order to see emerge from their very expression a multitude of ncw and
unexpected truths' No other language has the capacity for the elegance
that arises from a long sequence of expressions linked one to thc other
and all stemming from one fundamental idea. Therefore the geometers
[mathematicians] of this century convinced of its [analysis] superiority
have applied themselves primarily to extending its domain and pushing
back its bounds.r
A few features of the analysis warrant note. Newton's emphasis on the
derivative and antidifferentiation was retained, so that the summation
concept was rarely employed. On the other hand, Leibniz's corcept, that is,
the differential form of the derivative, and Leibniz's. notation became
standard, despite the fact that throughout the century the Leibnizian
differentials had no precise meaning. The first differentials dy and dx of a
function U : -f (x) were legitimized in the nineteenth century (Chap. 40,
sec. 3), but the higher-order differentials, which the eighteenth-century men
used freely, have not been put on a rigorous basis even today. The eighteenth
century also continued the Leibnizian tradition o[ formal manipulation of
analytical expressions and, in fact, accentuated this practice.
The importance assigned to analysis had implications that the eight-
eenth-century men did not appreciate. It furthered the separation ofnumber
l. Book V, Chap. 5 : CEuures, 6, 465-,66.
6r6 MATHEMATIcs es or r8oo
from geometry and implicitly underscored the issue ofthe proper foundations
for the number system, algebra, and analysis itself. This problem was to
become critical in the nineteenth century. Peculiarly the eighteenth-century
mathematicians still referred to themselves as geometers, the term in vogue
during the preceding ages in which geometry had dominated mathematics.
2. Tlu Motioationfor the Eighteenth-Century Work

Far more than in any other century, the mathematical work of the eight-
eenth was directly inspired by physical problems. In fact, one can say that
the goal of the work was not mathematics, but rather the solution of physical
problems; mathematics was a means to physical ends. Laplace, though
perhaps an extreme case, certainly regarded mathematics as just a tool for
physics and was himself entirely concerned with its value for astronomy.
The major physical field was, of course, mechanics, and particularly
celestial mechanics. Mechanics became the paradise for mathematics, much
as Leonardo had predicted, because it suggested so many directions of
research. So extensive was the concern of mathematics with the problems of
mechanics that d'Alembert in the Enegclopidie and Denis Diderot ( I 713-84)
in his Pensies sur I'inttrlritation de la naturc (17 54) wrote of a transition from
the seventeenth-century age of mathematics to an age of mechanics. They
believed, in fact, that the mathematical work of men such as Descartes,
Pascal, and Newton was pass6, and that mechanics was to be the major
interest of mathematicians. Mathematics generally was useful, in their
opinion, only so far as it served physics. The eighteenth century concentrated
on the mechanics of discrete systems of masses and of continuous media.
Optics was temporarily pushed into the background.
What was actually happening, however, was the opposite of what
Diderot and d'Alembert maintained. The truer interpretation, certainly in
light of future developments, was expressed by Lagrange when he said that
those who liked analysis would be pleased to see mechanics become a new
branch of it. Put more broadly, the program initiated by Galileo, and
consciously pursued by Newton, of expressing the basic physical principles
as quantitative mathematical statements and deducing new physical results
by mathematical arguments, had been advanced immeasurably. Physics
was becoming more and more mathematical, at least in those areas where the
physical principles had become sufficiently well understood, The increasing
incorporation of major branches of physics into mathematical frameworks
established mathematical physics.
Mathematics not only began to embrace science, but, partly because
there was no sharp separation between science and what we would call
engineering, the mathematicians undertook technological problems as a
matter of course. Euler, for example, worked on the design of ships, the
action of sails, ballistics, cartography, and other practical problems. Monge
TI{E PROBLEM OF PROOT 617
took his work on excavation and fiIl and the design of windmill vanes as
seriously as any problem of differential geometry or differential equations.
J. F. (Jean-Etienne) Montucla (1725-99), in his Histoire des mathimatiques
(2nd ed., 1799-1S02) divided mathematics into two parts, the one "com-
prising those things that are pure and abstract, the other those that one
calls compound, or more ordinarily physico-mathematics." His second part
comprised fields that can be approached and treated mathematically, that
is, mechanics, optics, astronomy, military and civil architecture, insurance,
acoustics, and music. Under optics he included dioptrics and even optometry'
catoptrics, and perspective. Mechanics included dynamics and statics,
hydrodynamics and hydrostatics. Astronomy covered geography, theoretical
astronomy, spherical astronomy, gnomonics (e.g. sundials), chronology, and
navigation. Montucla also included astrology, the constructon of obser-
vatories, and the design of ships.
3. The Problem of Proof

That physical problems motivated most mathematical work was of course
not peculiar to the eighteenth century, but in that century the merger of
mathematics and physics was crucial. The major development, as we have
noted, was analysis. However, the very basis of the calculus not only was not
clear, but had been under attack almost from the beginning of the seven-
teenth-century work on the subject. Eighteenth-century thinking was
certainly loose and intuitive. Any delicate questions of analysis, such as the
convergence ol series and integrals, the interchange of the order of differen-
tiation and integration, the use of differentials ofhigher order, and questions
of existence of integrals and solutions of differential equations, were all but
ignored. That the mathematicians were able to proceed at all was due to the
fact that the rules of operation were clear. Having formulated the physical
problems mathematically, the virtuosos got to work, and new methodologies
and conclusions emerged. Certainly the mathematics itself was purely formal.
Euler was so fascinated by formulas that he could hardly refrain from manip-
ulating them. How could the mathematicians have dared merely to aPply
rules and yet assert the reliability of their conclusions ?
The physical meaning of the mathematics guided the mathematical
steps and often supplied partial arguments to fill in nonmathematical steps.
The reasoning was in essence no different from a proof of a theorem of
geometry, wherein some facts entirely obvious in the figure are used even
though no axiom or theorem suPPorts them. Finally, the physical correctness
of the conclusions gave assurance that the mathematics must be correct.
Another element in eighteenth-century mathematical thought sup-
ported the arguments. The men trusted the symbols far more than they did
logic, Because infinite series had the same symbolic lorm for all values ol r,
6rB MATHEMATTcs es or r8oo
the distinction between values of* for which the series converged and values
for which it diverged did not seem to demand attention. And even though
they recognized that some series, such as I + 2 + 3 +. . ., had an infinite
sum, they preferred to try to give meaning to the sum rather than question
the summation.
Likewise the somewhat free use of complex numbers rested on the
confidence in symbols, Since second degree expressions, ar2 * bx * c,
could be expressed as a product of linear factors when the zeros were real,
it was equally clear that there should be linear factors when the zeros were
complex. The formal operations of the calculus, differentiation and anti-
diflerentiation, were extended to new functions despite the fact that the
mathematicians were conscious of their own lack of clarity about the ideas.
This reliance upon formalism blinded them somewhat. Thus the difficulty
they had in broadening their notion of function was caused by their adher-
ence to the conviction that functions must be expressible by formulas.
The eighteenth-century men were fully aware of the mathematical
requirement of proof. We have seen that Euler did try to justify his use of
divergent series and Lagrange, among others, did offer a foundation for the
calculus. But the few efforts to achieve rigor, significant because they show
that standards of rigor vary with the times, did not logicize the work of the
century; and the men almost willingly took the position that what cannot
be cured must be endured. They were so intoxicated with their physical
successes that most often they were indifferent to the missing rigor. Very
striking is the extreme confidence in the conclusions while the theory was so
ill-assured. Because the eighteenth-century mathematicians were willing to
plunge ahead so boldly without logical support, this period has been called
the heroic age in mathematics.
Perhaps because the few efforts to rigorize the calculus were unsuccessful
and additional questions o[ rigor raised by subsequent analytical work were
hopclessly beyond resolution, some mathematicians abandoned the effort
to secure it and, Iike the fox with the grapes, consciously derided the rigor
of the Greeks. Sylvestre-Frangois Lacroix (1765-1843), in the second edition
(1810-19) of his three-volume Traiti du calcul difuentful et du calcul intigral,
says, in the preface to Volume I (p. I I ), " Such subtleties as the Greeks
worried about we no longer need." The typical attitude of the century was:
Why go to the trouble of proving by abstruse reasoning things which one
never doubts in the first place, or of demonstrating what is more evident by
means of what is less evident ?
Even Euclidean geometry was criticized, on the ground that it offered
proofs where none were deemed to be needed. Clairaut said in his Eliments
de giomittic (1741),
It is not surprising that Euclid goes to the trouble of demonstrating

that two circles which cut one another do not have the same center,
THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS 6rg
that the sum of the sides of a triangle which is enclosed within another
is smaller than the sum of the sides of the enclosing triangle. This
geometer had to convince obstinate sophists who glory in rejecting the
most evident truths; so that geometry must, like logic, rely on formal
reasoning in order to rebut the quibblers. . . . But the tables have turned.
All reasoning concerned with what common sense knows in advance,
serves only to conceal the truth and to weary the reader and is today
disregarded.
This attitude of the eighteenth century was also expressed by Josef

Maria Hoene-Wronski (1778-1853), who was a great algorithmist but was
not concerned with rigor. A paper of his was criticized by a Commission of
the Paris Academy of Sciences as lacking in rigor; Wronski rePlied that this
was " pedantry which prefers means to the end."
The men were, on the whole, aware of their own indifference to rigor.
D'Alembert said in 1743, "Up to the present ... more concern has been
given to enlarging the building than to illuminating the entrance, to raising
it higher than to giving proper strength to the foundations." Accordingly,
the eighteenth century broke new ground as has not been done since. The
great creations, in view of the limited number of men involved, were more
numerous than in any other century. The nineteenth- and twentieth-
century men, inclined to look down on the crude, often brash, inductive
work of the eighteenth, stressed its excesses and errors in order to belittle its
triumphs.
4. The Metaphysical Basis

Though the mathematicians did recognize that their creations had not
been reformulated in terms of the deductive model of Euclid, they were
confident of the truth of the mathematics. This confidence rested in part, as
noted, on the physical correctness of the conclusions, but also on philo-
sophical and theological grounds. Truth was assured because mathematics
was simply unearthing the mathematical design of the universe. The keynote
of late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century philosophy, expressed especially
by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Leibniz, was the pre-established
harmony between reason and nature. This doctrine had really been unchal-
lenged since the time of the Greeks. Need one quibble, then, if the mathe-
matical laws that so clearly applied to nature lacked the precision of purely
mathematical proof? Though the eighteenth century uncovered only pieces,
they were pieces of underlying truths. The remarkable accuracy of the
mathematical deductions, especially in celestial mechanics, were glorious
confirmation of the century's confidence in the mathematical design of the
universe.
The eighteenth-century men were likewise convinced that certain
6zo MATHEMATToS es or r8oo
mathematical principles must be true beca.use the mathematical design
must have incorporated them. Thus, since a perfect universe would not
tolerate waste, its action was the least required to achieve its purposes.
Hence the Principle of Least Action was, as Maupertuis affirmed and Euler
seconded in his Methodus Inaeniendi, unquestionable.
The conviction that the world was mathematically designed derived
from the earlier linking of science and theology. We may recall that most of
the leading figures of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were not only
deeply religious but found in their theological views the inspiration and
conviction vital to their scientific work. Copernicus and Kepler were certain
that the heliocentric theory must be true because God must have preferred
the mathematically simpler theory. Descartes's beliel that our innate ideas,
among them the axioms of mathematics, are true and that our reasoning is
sound rested on the conviction that God would not deceive us, so that to deny
the truth and clarity of mathematics would be to deny God. Newton, as
already mentioned, regarded the chief value of his scientific efforts to be the
study of God's work and the support of revealed religion. Many passages in
his works are glorifications of God, and the General Scholium at the end of
Book III of his Priruipia is largely a tribute to God reminiscent of Kepler.
Leibniz's explanation of the concord between the real and the mathematical
worlds, and his ultimate defense of the applicability of his calculus to the
real world, was the unity of the world and God. The laws of reality could
therefore not deviate from the ideal laws of mathematics. The universe was
the most perfect conceivable, the best of all possible worlds, and rational
thinking disclosed its laws.
Though it retained the belief in the mathematical design of nature, the
eighteenth century ultimately discarded the philosophical and religious
bases for this belief. The core of the entire philosophical position, the doc-
trine that the universe was designed by God, was gradually undermined by
purely mathematico-physical explanations. The religious motivation for
mathematical work had begun to lose ground even in the seventeenth
century. Galileo had sounded the call for a break. He says in one of his
letters, "Yet for my part any discussion of the Sacred Scriptures might have
lain dormant forever; no astronomer or scientist who remained within
proper bounds has ever got into such things." Then Descartes, by asserting
the invariability of the laws of nature, had implicitly restricted God's role.
Newton confined the actions ofGod to keeping the world functioning accord-
ing to plan. He used the figure ol speech of a watchmaker keeping a watch
in repair. Thus the role attributed to God became more and more restricted;
and, as universal laws embracing heavenly and earthly motions (which
Newton himself revealed) began to dominate the intellectual scene and as
the continued agreement between predictions and observations bespoke the
perfection of these laws, God sank more and more into the background and
THE ExpANsroN oF MATHEMATTcAL Acrrvrrrr 6zl
the mathematical laws of the universe became the focus of attention. Leibniz
saw that Newton's Principia implied a world functioning according to plan
with or without God, and attacked the book as anti-Christian. But the
further the development of mathematics proceeded in the eighteenth century
the more the religious inspiration and motivation for mathematical work
receded.
Unlike Maupertuis and Euler, Lagrange denied any metaphysical im-
plication in the Principle of Least Action. The concern to obtain physically
significant results replaced the concern for God's design. As far as mathe-
matical physics was concerned, the complete rejection of God and any
metaphysical principles resting on his existence was made by Laplace. There
is a well-known story that when Laplace gave Napoleon a copy of his
Micanique cileste, Napoleon remarked, "M. Laplace, they tell me you have
written this large book on the system of the universe and have never even
mentioned its Creator." Laplace is said to have replied, "I have no need of
this hypothesis." Toward the end of the century the label " metaphysical "
applied to an argument became a term of reproach, though it was often
used to condemn what mathematicians could not understand. Thus Monge's
theory of characteristics, which was not understood by his contemporaries,
was called metaphysical.
5. Tlte Expansion of Mathematical Actioity

In the eighteenth century the academies of science founded in the middle
and at the end of the seventeenth century, rather than the universities,
sponsored and supported mathematical research. The academies also
supported the journals, which had become the regular outlet for new work.
About the only change in the aflairs of the academies is that in 1795 the
Academy of Sciences of Paris was reconstituted as one of three divisions of
the Institute of France.
In Germany, prior to 1800, the universities did no research. They
offered a couple ofrequired years ofliberal arts followed by specialization in
law, theology, or medicine. The great mathematicians were not in the
universities but were attached to the Berlin Academy of Science. However, in
1810, Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) founded the University of
Berlin and introduced the radical idea that professors should lecture on
what they wished to and that students could take what they preferred.
Hence for the first time professors could lecture on their research interests.
Thus Jacobi lectured on his work on elliptic functions at Koenigsberg from
1826 on, though this was still unusual and other teachers had to cover his
regular classes. In the nineteenth century many of the German kingdoms,
duchies, and free cities founded universities that began to support research
professors.
6zz MATHEMATTcS es or r8oo
The French universities of the eighteenth century, at least until the

Revolution, were no better than those in Germany, However the new
government decided to found highJevel universities for teaching and
research. The organizational work was carried out by Nicolas de Condorcet,
who had been active in mathematics. The Ecole Polytechnique, founded in
1794, had Monge and Lagrange as its first mathematics professors. Students
competed for admission and were supposed to receive the training that
would enable them to become engineers or army officers. Actually the mathe-
matical level of the courses was very high, and the graduates were able to
undertake mathematical research. Through this training and through the
published lectures, the school exerted a wide and strong influence. In l80B
the French government founded the Ecole Normale Sup6rieure, which had
been preceded by the Ecole Normale; the latter, founded in 1794, lasted
only a few months. The new Ecole was devoted to the training of teachers
and was divided into two sections, humanities and science. Here too students
competed for admission; advanced courses were offered; facilities for study
and research were good; and the better students were directed into research.
The nations of Europe differed considerably in mathematical produc-
tivity during the eighteenth century. The leading country was France,
followed by Switzerland. Germany was relatively inactive, so far as German
nationals were concerned, though Euler and Lagrange were supported by
the Berlin Academy of Sciences. England too languished. Brook Taylor,
Matthew Stewart (1717-85), and Colin Maclaurin were the only prominent
mathematicians. England's poor performance in view of its great activity in
the seventeenth century may be surprising, but the explanation is readily
found. The English mathematicians had not only isolated themselves
personally from the Continentals as a consequence of the controversy
between Newton and Leibniz, but also suffered by following the geometrical
methods of Newton. The English settled down to study Newton instead of
nature. Even in their analytical work they used Newton's notation for
fluxions and fluents and refused to read anything written in the notation of
Leibniz. Moreover, at Oxford and Cambridge, noJew or Dissenter from the
Church of England could even be a student. By I Bl5 mathematics in England
was at its last gasp and astronomy nearly so.
In the first quarter of the nineteenth century the British mathematicians
began to take interest in the work on the calculus and its extensions, which
had proceeded apace on the Continent. The Analytical Society was formed at
Cambridge in l8l3 to study this work. George Peacock (1791-1858), John
Herschel (1792-197l), Charles Babbage and others undertook to study the
principles of "d-ism "-that is, the Leibnizian notation in the calculus, as
against those of "dot-age," or the Newtonian notation. Soon the quotient
dyldx replaced, !, and the Continental texts and papers became accessible to
English students. Babbage, Peacock, and Herschel translated a one-
A GLANcE AHEAD 623
volume edition of Lacroix's Traiti and, published it in I B 16. By 1830 the

English were able to join in the work of the Continentals. Analysis in England
did prove to be largely mathematical physics, though some entirely new
directions of work, algebraic invariatrt theory and symbolic logic, were also
initiated in that country.
6. A Glance Ahead
As we know, by the end of the eighteenth century the mathematicians had
created a number of new branches of mathematics. But the problems of
these branches had become extremely complicated and, with few exceptions,
no general methods had been devised to treat them. The mathematicians
began to feel blocked. Lagrange wrote to d'Alembert on September 21,
I 78 l, " It appears to me also that the mine [of mathematics] is already very
deep and that unless one discovers new veins it will be necessary sooner or
later to abandon it. Physics and chemistry now offer the most brilliant
riches and easier exploitation; also our century's taste aPPears to be entirely
in this direction and it is not impossible that the chairs of geometry in the
Academy will one day become what the chairs of Arabic presently are in
the universities." 2 Euler and d'Alembert agreed with Lagrange that mathe-
matics had almost exhausted its ideas, and they saw no new great minds on
the horizon. This fear was expressed even as early as 1754 by Diderot in
Thoughts on the Interpretation of Nature : " I dare say that in less than a century
we shall not have three great geometers [mathematicians] Ieft in Europe.
This science will very soon come to a standstill where the Bernoullis, Mauper-
tuis, Clairauts, Fontaines, d'Alemberts and Lagranges will have left it. . . .
We shall not go beyond this point."
Jean-Baptiste Delambre (1749-1822), who was permanent secretary of
the mathematics and physics section of the Institut de France, in a report
(Rapport historique sur le progris des sciences mathimatiqucs depuis 1789 ct sur leur
itat actuel, Paris, said, " It would be difficult and rash to analyze the
l8l0)
chances which the future offers to the advancement of mathematics; in
almost all its branches one is blocked by insurmountable difficulties;
perfection of detail seems to be the only thing which remains to be done. All
these difficulties appear to announce that the power of our analysis is
practically exhausted.. . . "
The wiser prediction was made in lTBl by Condorcet, who was im-
pressed by Monge's work.
...in spite of so many works often crowned by success, we are far
from having exhausted all the applications of analysis to geometry,
and instead of believing that we have approached the end where
2. Lagtange, (Euarer, 13, 368.

624 MATr{EMATtcs .a,s or rSoo
these sciences must stop because they have reached the limit of the
forces ofthe human spirit, we ought to avow rather we are only at the
first steps of an immense career. These new [practical] applications,
independently of the utility which they may have in themselves, are
necessary to the progress of analysis in generall they give birth to
questions which one would not think to propose; they demand that
one create new methods. Technical processes are the children ofneed;
one can say the same for the methods of the most abstract sciences.
But we owe the latter to needs of a more noble kind, the need to dis-
cover the new truths or to know better the laws of nature,
Thus one sees in the sciences many brilliant theories which have
remained unapplied for a long time suddenly becoming the foundation
of most important applications, and likewise applications very simple
in appearance giving birth to ideas of the most abstract theories, for
which no one would have felt the need, and directing the work of
geometers [mathematicians] to these theories. . ..
Condorcet was of course correct. In fact, mathematics expanded in the

nineteenth century even more than in the eighteenth. In 1783, the year in
which both Euler and d'Alembert died, Laplace was thirty-four years of
age, Legendre thirty-one, Fourier fifteen, and Gauss six.
Just what the new mathematics was we shall see in succeeding chapters.
But we shall note here some of the agencies for the propagation ofresults to
which we shall refer later. There was, fi.rst of all, a vast expansion in the
number of research journals. The Journal de l'Ecole Polgtechnique was founded
at the same time that the school was organized. In l8l0 Joseph-Diez Ger-
gonne (1771-1859) started the Annales de Mathimatiques Pures et Appliquies,
which lasted until I 83l . This was the first purely mathematical journal. In
the meantime August Leopold Crelle (1780-1855), a noteworthy figure
because he was a good organizer and helped many young people to obtain
university positions, started the Journal fi)r die rcine und angcuandte Mathematik
in 1826.3 By this title Crelle intended to show that he wished to broaden the
scope of mathcmatical interests. Despite Crelle's intentions, the journal was
soon filled with specialized mathematical articles and was often referred to
humorously as the Journal fi)r reine unangewandte Mathematik (journal purely
for unapplied mathematics). This journal is also referred to as Crelle's Journal,
and, from 1855 to I BB0, as Borchardt's Journal. In I 795 the Mimoires de
I'Acadimie des Sciences became the Mhnoires de I'Acadimie des Seienees de l'Institut
de Frarce.The Academy of Sciences of Paris also started, in 1835, the Comptes
Rendus, to serve the purpose ofgiving in four pages or less briefnotices ofnew
results. There is an apocryphal story that the restriction to four pages was
intended to limit Cauchy, who had been writing prolifically.
In 1836 Liouville founded the French analogue of Crelle's Journal, the
3. Hereafter referred to as Jour. fiir Math.
BIBLIOGRAPIIY 6zs
Journal de Mathimatiqurs Pures et Appliquies, which is often referred to as

Liouaille's Journal. Louis Pasteur (1822-95) founded the Annales Scientifiques
de l'Ecote Normale Supirieure in t 864, while Gaston Darboux (1842-1917)
launched Le Bulletin des Sciences Mathimatiquts in 1870. Among the numerous
other journals, we shall mention the Mathematische Annalen (1868), the lcla
Mathemalica ( I BB2), and the American Journal of Mathematics, the first mathe-
matical journal in the United States. This was founded in 1B7B by J.J.
Sylvester when he was a professor at Johns Hopkins University.
Another type of agency has promoted mathematical activity since the
nineteenth century. The mathematicians ol several countries formed pro-
fessional societies such as the London Mathematical Society, the first of its
kind and organized in 1865, the Soci6t6 Mathdmatique de France (1872),
the American Mathematical Society ( I B8B) , and the Deutsche Mathematiker-
Vereinigung (1890). These societies hold regular meetings at which papers
are presented; each sponsors one or more journals, in addition to those
already mentioned, such as the Bulletin de la Sociiti Mathimatique de France and
the Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society.
As the above skctch of newer organizations and publications implies,
mathematics expanded enormously in the nineteenth century. In large part
this expansion became possible because a small aristocracy of mathematicians
was supplanted by a far broader group. The spread of learning made possible
the entry of lar more scholars from all economic levels. The trend had begun
even in the eighteenth century. Euler was the son of a Pastor; d'Alembert
was an illegitimate child brought up by a poor family; Monge was the son of
a peddler; and Laplace was born to a peasant family' The participation of
universities in research, the writing of textbooks, and the systematic training
of scientists initiated by Napoleon produced a far greater number ol mathe-
maticians.
Bibliography
Boutroux, Piete: L'Ideal scientifque d,es mathimaticiens, Libraire Felix Alcan, 1920'
Brunschvicg, L6on: Les Etales dr la philosophie mathimatiqw, Presses Universitaires de
France, 1947, Chaps. l0-12'
Hankins, Thomas L,: Jean d' Alembert : Science and Enlighlenment, Oxford University
Press, 1970.
Hille , Einar: " Mathematics and Mathematicians from Abel to Zermelo," Matlu'
matics Magazine, 26, 1953, 127 -46.
Montucla, J. F.: Histoire ths mathimatiques' 2nd ed., 4 vols., 1799-1802, Albert
Blanchard (reprint), 1960.
27
Functions of a Complex Variable
The shortest path between two truths in the real domain passes
through the complex domain. JACqUES HADAMARD
l. Introdtction
From the technical standpoint, the most original creation of the nineteenth
century was the theory of functions of a complex variable. The subject is
often referred to as the theory offunctions, though the abbreviated descrip-
tion implies more than is intended. This new branch of mathematics domi-
nated the nineteenth century almost as much as the direct extensions of the
calculus dominated the eighteenth century. The theory of functions, a most
fertile branch of mathematics, has been called the mathematical joy of the
century. It has also been acclaimed as one of the most harmonious theories
in the abstract sciences.
2. Tlu Beginnings of Complex Function Theory

As we have seen, complex numbers and even complex functions entered
mathematics effectively in connection with integration by partial fractions,
the determination of the logarithms of negative and complex numbers,
conformal mapping, and the decomposition ol a polynomial with real co-
efficients. Actually the 'men of the eighteenth century did lar more with
complex numbers and functions.
In his essay on hydrodynamics, Essay on a New Theorg of the Resistance o;f
Fluik (1752), d'Alembert considers the motion of a body through a homo-
geneous, weightless, ideal fluid, and in connection with this study considers
the following problem. He seeks to determine two functions I and q whose
differentials are
(r) dq:Mdx+Ndy, d!:Nd*-Mdy.
Since the quantities 1[ and M occur in both dp and dq, it follows that
(2)
ap
Ax 0y'
:aq. A:
0y
_0q.
0x
626
THE BEGTNNTNGS orcoMpLEx ruNcrloN THEoRY 627
These equations are now called the Cauchy-Riemann equations. The equa-
tions (2) say (Chap. 19, sec. 6) that q dx * p dg and, ! dx - q dy are exact
differentials of certain functions. Then the expressions (we shall use i for
y'=I, though this was done only occasionally by Euler and made common
practice by Gauss)
qdx-tPds+i(Pdx-qdy): <t + a\a, +4)

and
qdx + pdy - i(?dx - qdy): rt - *t(a- -4

are also complete differentials, and so g * ip is a function of x * gli and
q - ip is a function of x - y li. D'Alembert sets
(3) c+iP:t(..i) +;r(.+!)

(4) c-ip:r(,-r-J -n(-i)
where f and ( are functions to be determined and which d'Alembert does
determine in special cases. By adding and subtracting (3) and (4) he obtains
p and, q. The significance of this is that he has shown that p and 4 are the
real and imaginary parts of a complex function.
Euler showed how to use complex functions to evaluate real integrals.
He wrote a series of papers from I 776 to the time of his death in I 783 which
were published from 1TBB on. Two of these were published in 1793 and
1797.1 Euler remarks that every function of z which fot z : t + ,y takes
the form M + iN, where M and iI are real functions, also takes on, for
z : x - ry, the form M - iN. This, he states, is the fundamental theorem
of complex numbers. He uses this assertion to evaluate real integrals.
Suppose
(5) | zP'1a,: v
where zisreal. He sets z : x* iy so that Zbecomes P + iQ' Then
(6) P + iQ : I r, + iN)(dx + ids),

where M * ilf is now the complex form of Z(z). By his basic assertion,
(7) P - iQ: Ir'- iN)(dx-idy),

l. Nooq Acta Acad. Sci. Pctrop.,7, 1789,99-133, pub. 1793 : Olen, (l)' 19, l-44; ilid-' l0'
1792, 3-19, pub. 1797 : O|era, (l), 19, 268-86.
628 FUNCTIONS OF A COMPLE}( VARIABLE
so that by separating real and imaginary parts,
(B) e: !ua. + Ndy, o: INa, + Mds.

Then M dx - N dy and N dx + M dy are exact diflerentials of P and Q
respectively, from which it follows that
(9) AM AN AN AM
-oy:
- ax' ay:-il'
Thus by substituting z: xi iy in Z (z), " one obtains two functions M and
lY which possess the remarkable property that 0Ml0y: -aNlAx and,
0Ml0x : ANIAy; P and Q have similar properties." Ilere Euler stresses
that M and .ly', the real and imaginary parts of a complex function, satisly
the Cauchy-Riemann equations. Howwer, his main point is to use the
integrals (B) to calculate (5), for P equals the original Z. To reduce the
integrals in (8) to integrals of functions of one variable, Euler replaces
z:x* jy in (5) by z: r(cos d + isin d) and keeps d constant. This
amounts to integrating along a ray through the origin ofthe complex plane.
He then uses his method to evaluate some integrals.
Laplace too used complex functions to evaluate integrals. In a series
of papers that start in l7B2 and end with his famous Thiorie analgtique des
probabilitCs (l8l2), he passes from real to complex integrals, much as Euler
did, to evaluate the real integrals. Laplace claimed priority because
Euler's papers were published later than his own. However, even the
papers of 1793 and 1797 mentioned above were read to the St. Petersburg
Academy in March of 1777 . Incidentally, in this work Laplace introduced
what we now call the Laplace transform method of solving differential
equations.
The work of Euler, d'Alembert, and Laplace constituted significant
progress in the theory of functions. However, there is an essential limitation
in their work. They depended upon separating the real and imaginary
parts of;f(* * ig) to carry out their analytical work. The complex function
was not really the basic entity. It is clear that these men were still very
uneasy about the use of complex functions. Laplace, in his IBl2 book,
remarks, " This transition from real to imaginary can be regarded as a
heuristic method, which is like the method of induction long used by
mathematicians. However if one uses the method with great care and
restraint, one will always be able to prove the results obtained." He does
emphasize that the results must be verified.
3. The Geometrical Representation oJ Complex Numbers

A vital step that made the erection of a theory of functions of a complex
variable more intuitively reasonable was the geometrical representation of
6zg
J)
Figure 27.1
complex numbers and of the algebraic operations with these numbers. That
many men-Cotes, De Moivre, Euler, and Vandermonde-really thought
of complex numhers as points in the plane follows from the fact that all, in
attempting to solve x" - | : 0, thought of the solutions
fln
"o"2kn
* i
"in2ko
as the vertices of a regular polygon. Euler, for example, replaced x and y,
which geometrically he visualized as a point in the coordinate plane, by
x * ig and then represented the latter by r(cos 0 + i sin 0), which in turn
he plots as polar coordinates r and 0. Hence one could say that the plotting
of complex numbers as coordinates of points in the plane was known by
1800. However, decisive identification of the two was not made, nor did the
algebraic operations with complex numbers have as yet any geometrical
meaning. Also missing was the idea of plotting the values of a complex
function u * io of x f zy as points in another plane.
ln 1797 the self-taught Norwegian-born surveyor Caspar Wessel
( 1745-l B I S) wrote a paper entitled " On the Analytic Representation of
Direction; an Attempt," which was published in the memoirs for 1799 of

the Royal Academy of Denmark. Wessel sought to rePresent geometrically
directed line segments (vectors) and operations with them. In this paper an
axis of imaginaries with y'J Gr. writes e for y'J) as an associated unit
is introduced along with the usual *-axis with real unit I . In Wessel's
geometric representation, the vector OP (Fig. 27.1) is the line segment OP
Jra*n from ihe origin O in the plane of the units + 1 and t/ -1, and the
vector is represented by the complex number, a + h{ -1. Similarly, the
vector OQ is the line segment OQ and, is represented by another number,
say, + d\/=.
Wessel then defines the operations with vectors by defining the opera-
tions with complex numbers in geometrical terms' His definitions of the four
operations are practically the ones we learn today. Thus the sum of 4 + bi
and c + di is the diagonal of the parallelogram determined by the adjacent
sides OP and OQ. The product of a + bi and c * da is a new vector OrR, say,
63o FUNCTIONS OF A COMPLEX I/ARIABLE
a
-l I
Figure 27.2
such that Ort is to OQ as OP is to the real unit, and the angle made by OR
and the r-axis is the sum of the angles made by OP and OQ. Clearly Wessel
thought in terms of vectors rather than associating complex numbers with
points in the plane. He applies his geometric representation of vectors to
problems of geometry and trigonometry. Despite its great merit, Wessel's
paper went unnoticed until 1897, when it was republished in a French
translation.
A somewhat different geometric interPretation of complex numbers
was given by a Swiss, Jean-Robert Argand (1768-1822). Argand, who was
also self-taught and a bookkeeper, published a small book, Essai sur une
manihc de rcpriscntcr hs quantitis imaginaires dans lcs constructions giomitriques
(1806).3 He observes that negative numbers are an extension of positive
numbers that results from combining direction with magnitude. He then
asks, Can we extend the real number system by adding some new concePt ?
Let us consider the sequence 1,.r, - 1. Can we find an operation that turns
I into *, and then repeated on r turns x into - I ? If we rotate OP (Fig.27.2)
counterclockwise about O through 90'and then repeat this rotation, we do
go from P to Q by repeating an operation twice. But, Argand notes, this is
precisely what happens if we multiply I by t/ -t and then multiply this
product by {=1 ; that is, we obtain - I . Hence we can think of VJ as a
rotation through 90o counterclockwise, say, and - l1l as a clockwise
rotation through 90o.
To utilize this operational meaning of complex numbers, Argand
decided that a typical line segment OB (Fig.27.3) emanating from the
origin, which he calls a directed line, should be represented as r(cos c f I
sin c), where r is the length. He also regarded the complex number a * Di
as symbolizing the geometrical combination OB of a and Di. Argand, like
Wessel, showed how complex numbers can be added and multiplied geo-
merically and applied these geometrical ideas to Prove theorems of trigo-
2. A number of papers on Argand's idea and ideas of other writers on the geometrical
representation of complex numbers can be found in Volume 4 (1813-14) and Volume 5
(1814-15) of Gcrgonne's Annales dcs Malhimaliqus.
cEoMETRToAL RErR.EsENTATToN oF coMpLEx NUMBERs 63t
nometry, geometry, and algebra. Though Argand's book stirred up some

controversy about the geometric interpretation of complex numbers, this
was the only contribution to mathematics that he made and his work had
little impact. We do, however, still speak of the Argand diagram.
Gauss was more effective in bringing about the acceptance of complex
numbers. He used them in his several proofs of the fundamental theorem of
algebra (Chap. 25, sec. 2). In the first three proofs (1799, l8l5, and 1816)
he presupposes the one-to-one correspondence of points of the Cartesian
plane and complex numbers. There is no actual plotting of * f iy, but
rather ofr and y as coordinates ofa point in the real plane. Moreover, the
proofs do not really use complex function theory because he separates the
real and imaginary parts of the functions involved. He is more explicit in a
letter to Bessel of l8ll,3 wherein he says that a * ib is represented by the
point (a, D) and that one can go from one point to another of the complex
plane by many paths. There is no doubt, if one judges from the thinking
exhibited in the three proofs and in other unpublished works, some of
which we shall discuss shortly, that by l8l5 Gauss was in full possession of
the geometrical theory of complex numbers and functions, though he did
say in a letter of lB25 that "the true metaphysics of GI is elusive."
However, if Gauss still possessed any scruples, by I83l he had overcome
them, and he publicly described the geometric representation of complex
numbers. In the second commentary to his paper " Theoria Residuorum
Biquadraticorum " a and in the "Anzeige" (announcement and brief
account) of this paper that he wrote himself for the Giittingisclu gelchtc
Anzeigen of April 23, 1831,5 Gauss is very explicit about the geometrical
representation of complex numbers. In Article 38 of the paper he not only
gives the representation of a + bi as a point (not a vector, as with Wessel
and Argand) in the complex plane, but describes the geometrical addition
and multiplication of complex numbers. In the "Anzeige"6 Gauss says that
the transfer ofthe theory ofbiquadratic residues into the domain of complex
numbers may disturb those who are not familiar with these numbers and
may leave them with the impression that the theory of residues is left up
in the air. He therefore repeats what he has said in the paper proper about
the geometrical representation of complex numbers, He then points out
that while fractions, negative numbers, and real numbers were now well
understood, complex numbers had merely been tolerated, despite their
great value. To many they have appeared to be just a play with symbols.
But in this geometrical representation one finds the " intuitiac mcaning of
complex numbers conpletelg established and morc is not nceded to admit tlusc quantitics
3. Werlcc,8, 90-92.
4. Comm. Soc. Gott., 3, 1832
'Chapter
: Werke,2,9Fl48; the main content of thb PaPcr will bc
discussed in 34, sec. 2.
5. Werkt,2, 169-78.
6, Werke,2, 174 tr,
631 FUNcrIoNs oF A coMPLEx VARTABLE
into tlu domain oJ arithmetic [italics added]." He also says that if the units 1
- l, and t/41 hua not been given the names positive, negative, and imag-
inary units but were called direct, inverse, and lateral, people would not
have gotten the impression that there was some dark mystery in these
numbers. The geometrical representation, he says, puts the true meta-
physics of imaginary numbers in a new light' He introduced the term
" complex numbers " as opposed to imaginary numbers,T and used i for
\/=.
4. Tlu Foundation oJ Complex Function Theory

Gauss also introduced some basic ideas about functions of a complex
variable. In the letter to Bessel of l8l1,8 aPropos ofa paper by Bessel on the
logarithmic integral, tdxlx, Gauss points out the necessity of taking
imaginary (complex) limits into account. Then he asks, "What should one
mean by J {(r) dx [Gauss writes J $x.dx) when the upper limit is a + Di ?
Manifestl|, if one wants to have clear concepts, he must assume that'I takes
on small increments from that value of r for which the integral is 0 to the
value a * bi and, then sum all the {(.r) dtc . . .. Bfi the continuous Passage
from one value of x to another in the complex plane takes place over a
curve and is therefore possible over many paths. I affirm now that the
integral J $Q) dx has only one value even if taken over different paths pro-
vided {(x) is single-valued and does not become infinite in the space
enclosed by the two paths. This is a very beautiful theorem whose prool is
not difficult and which I shall give on a convenient occasion." Gauss did
not give this proof. He also affirms that if {(x) does become infinite, then
J6@ a* can have many values, depending upon whether one
chooses a
closed path that encloses the point at which {(x) becomes infinite one, two,
or more times.
Then Gauss returns to the particular case of tdxlx and says that,
starting from x : I and going to some value a * bi, one obtains a unique
value for the integral if the path does not enclose x : 0; but if it does, one
must add 2ri or -2ni to the value obtained by going from * : I to x :
a + Di without enilosing x : 0. Thus there are many logarithms for a given
a I bi. Later in the letter, Gauss says that the investigation of the integrals
of functions of complex arguments should lead to most interesting results.
Thus, even before Gauss had published his second and third proofs of the
fundamental theorem-wherein, as in the first proof, he avoided the direct
use of complex numbers and functions excePt for an occasional writing of
a + bt/-]i-,he had very definite ideas about complex functions and about
the integrals of such functions.
7 . Wcrke, 2, p. 102.
8. Weilu,8, 90-92.
TuE FouNDATToN oF coMpLEx FUNcrroN TrrEoRtr 6g9
Poisson noted in l8l5 and discussed in a paper of l820s the use of

integrals of complex functions taken over paths in the complex plane. As an
example he gives
(10)
I',_,+-
Here he sets , : eto, where d runs from (2n + l)r to 0, and obtains, by
treating the integral as a limit of a sum, the value - (2n + l)il.
Then he notes that the value ofan integral need not be the same when
taken over an imaginary path as when over a real path. He gives the
example
f@ cos ar
(11) d*,
J-* *,
: t * ik, where ,t is constant
where a and b are positive constants. He lets ,t -t\
and positive, and obtains the values r(e-"o - e"b) l2r for k > b and
re-ob for k < b. The second value is also the correct one fot k : 0. Thus
for two different values of i, which means two different paths, one gets two
different results. Poisson was the first man to carry out integrations along a
path in the complex plane.
Though these observations of Gauss and Poisson are indeed significant,
neither published a major paper on complex function theory. This theory
was founded by Augustin-Louis Cauchy. Born in Paris in 1789, in 1805 he
entered the Ecole Polytechnique, where he studied engineering. Because he
was in poor health he was advised by Lagrange and Laplace to devote him-
self to mathematics. He held professorships at the Ecole Polytechnique, the
Sorbonne, and the Colldge de France. Politics had unexpected effects on his
career. He was an ardent Royalist and supporter of the Bourbons. When in
1830 a distant branch ofthe Bourbons took control in France, he refused to
swear allegiance to the new monarchy and resigned his professorship at the
Ecole Polytechnique. He exiled himself to Turin and taught Latin and
Italian for some years. In lB3B he returned to Paris, where he served as
professor in several religious institutions, up to the time when the govern-
ment that took over aftcr the revolution of 1848 did away with oaths of
allegiance. In lB4B Cauchy took the chair of mathematical astronomy in
the Facult€ des Sciences of the Sorbonne. Though Napoleon III restored
the oath in 1852, he allowed Cauchy to forgo it. To the condescending
gesture of the Emperor he responded by donating his salary to the poor of
Sceaux, where he lived. Cauchy, an admirable professor and one of the
greatest mathematicians, died in 1857.
Cauchy- had universal interests. He knew the poetry of his time and
was the author of a work on Hebrew prosody. In mathematics he wrote
9. Jour. de t Ecole Pob,, ll, 1820, 295-341,

$4 FUNCTIONS OF A COMPLEX VARIABLE
Figure 27.4
over seven hundred papers, second only to Euler in number. His works in
a modern edition fill twenty-six volumes and embrace all branches of
mathematics. In mechanics he wrote important works on the equilibrium of
rods and of elastic membranes and on waves in elastic media. In the theory
of light he occupied himself with the theory of waves that Fresnel had
started and with the dispersion and polarization of light. He advanced the
theory of determinants immensely and contributed basic theorems in
ordinary and partial differential equations.
Cauchy's first significant paper in the direction of complex function
theory is his " Mdmoire sur la thdorie des int€grales d6finies." This paper
was read to the Paris Academy in lBl4. However, it was not submitted for
publication until lB25 and was published in l827.1o In the publication
Cauchy added two notes that pretty surely reflect developments between
1814 and 1825 and the possible influence of Gauss's work during that period.
Let us consider the paper proper for the present. Cauchy says in the prefiace
that he was led to this work by trying to rigorize the passage from the real
to the imaginary in processes used by Euler since 1759 and by Laplace since
1782 to evaluate definite integrals, and in fact Cauchy cites Laplace, who
observed that the method needed rigorization. But the paper proper does
not treat this problem. It treats the question of the interchange of the order
of integration in double integrals that arose in hydrodynamical investiga-
tions, Euler had said in I77011 that this interchange was permissible when
the limits for each of the variables under the integral sign were independent
of each other, and Laplace apparently agreed because he used this fact
repeatedly.
Specifically, Cauchy treats the relation
(12) dv dx : !""[."ta,a * o,
J*.['.lt*,r)
wherein xo, go, X, and y are constants (Fig.
27 .a). This interchange of the
order of integration holds whetJ@, y) is continuous in and on the boundary
lO. Min. des sao. dtrangers, (2), l,lS27,599-799 : CEwres, (l), l, 319-506.
ll. Noui Comm. Aead. Sci. Petrop., 14, 1769, 72-103, pub. 1770 : Olera, (l), 17, 289-315'
THE FOUNDATION OF COMPLEX FUNCTION THEORY 6ss
of the region. Then he introduces two functions V(x,y) and S(x,y) such
that
(t 3)
av as _avas
and =- : -;-.
0g Ax ox og
Euler had already shown in 1777 how to obtain such functions (see [5],
[B], and [9]). Now Cauchy considers anf(x,g) which is given by AVIAy :
0Sl0x. ln (12) he replacesrfon the left side by aVlay, and;fon the right side
by 3S/0x, so that
(14)
E"!1,# * o* : I',ff"q** *,
and by using the second equation in (13) he obtains
(ts)
!l"ll"T, * o* : - J',|.j.{u. *
"
These equalities can be used to evaluate double integrals in either order of
integration; however they do not involve complex functions. When Cauchy
says in his Introduction 12 that he will " establish rigorously and directly the
passage from the real to the imaginary (complex)," it is equations (13) that
he has in mind. Cauchy statesls that these two equations contain the whole
theory of the passage lrom the real to the imaginary.
All of the above is in the body of the l8l4 paper, and really gives no
explicit indication of how complex function theory is involved. Moreover,
though Cauchy used complex functions to evaluate definite real integrals in
the same manner as had Euler and Laplace, this use did not involve com-
plex functions as the basic entity. As late as l82l, in his Cours d'analgse,ta
he says
cos + G1 sin a
d
cosD * VJsinD
cos (a 1 b) + t/-t sin (a + D)
"are three symbolic expressions which cannot be interpreted according to

generally established conventions, and do not represent anything real." The
fact that the product of the first and second expressions above equals the
third, he says, does not make sense. To make sense of this equation one must
equate the real parts and the coefficients of t/ -1. "Every imaginary
equation is only the symbolic representation of two equations between real
quantities." If we operate on complex expressions according to rules
established for real quantities, we get exact results that are often important.
12, (Euures, (l ), 1,330.
13. @uorcs, (l), l, 338.
14. (Euares, (2),3, 154.
6g6 FUNcrroNs oF A coMPLEx VARTABLE
In this book he does treat complex numbers and complex variables

u + G1r, where u and z are functions of one real variable, but always in
the sense that the two real components are their significant content.
Complex-valued functions ol a complex variable were not considered.
In the year 1822, Cauchy took some further steps. From the relations
(14) and (ls) he had
v(x,y6)fdx : - s(x6,flf
[..vt*,Y) - J" tsrx,vl
(16) dy
and
(r7) J'" fsk,

r) - s(x,y6)l a* : -l'"V6,y) - v(xo,il) dy.
He now had the idea that he could combine these two equations and thus
make a statement aboutF(z) : F(x + iy) : S * lZ' Thus, by multiplying
(16) through by i and adding the two equations, he obtains
f"ro + iY) dx - E"oO * iss) dx

: I""or* + iy)idy - Li"or*"
+ is)idy,
which, by rearranging terms, gives
(rB) Il.'r-, +
iv)i dY *
Il"'a + iY) dx
:
+ ivo) dx + + iv)idv'
ff"ro !,'"n{x
This last result is the Cauchy integral theorem for the simple case of complex
integration around the boundary of a rectangle (Fig. 27.4). One can
express the result thus:
,.^
(le) IADCpk) a, : I
J J ABC
F(z) dz.
That is, the integral is independent of the path.

The above ideas Cauchy gives in a note of 1822, in his Risumi des
legons sur le calcuL infinitisimal,rs and in a footnote to the paper of 1814 which
was published in 1827. From these later writings we see how Cauchy did go
from real to complex functions.
In 1825 Cauchy wrote another paper, " M6moire sur les intdgrales
d6finies prises entre des limites imaginaires," but this was not published
15. : (Euures (2),4, 13-256.

rHE FouNDATIoN oF coMPLEx FUNcTIoN TrrEoRY 617
until1874.16 This paper is considered by many as his most important, and

one of the most beautiful in the history of science, though for a long time
Cauchy himself did not appreciate its worth.
In this paper he again considers the question of evaluating real
integrals by the method of substituting complex values for constants and
variables. He treats
lx+lY
(20) JQ) dz,
J*o *,ro
where z : x* ig, and defines the integral carefully as the limit of the sum
Zl@" * iv)[(x,*, - r,) * i(v"*, -

v=0
v)1,
where *s, xr, . . . , X, and y6, yy . . . , Y are the points of subdivision along a
path from (xo,y) to (X, Y). Here x + iyis definitely a point of the complex
plane and the integral is over a complex path. He also shows that if we set
x: iU),y: {(t), where I is real, then the result is independent of the
choice of $ and, t!, that is, independent of the path, provided that no dis-
continuity of/(z) lies between two distinct paths. This result generalizes the
result for rectangles.
Cauchy formulates his theorem thus: If/(r + ey) is finite and continu-
ous for ro < t < X andys < y < Y, then the value of the integral (20) is
independent of the form of the function. * : C(r) and y : 'y'(t). His proof
of this theorem uses the method of the calculus of variations. He considers
as an alternative path $(t) + eu(t),,t'(t) + ea(t), and shows that the first
variation of the integral with respect to e vanishes. This proof is not satis-
factory. In it Cauchy not only uses the existence of the derivative of f (z)
but also the continuity ol the derivative, though he does not assume either
fact in the statement of the theorem. The explanation is that Cauchy
believed a continuous function is always differentiable and that the deriva-
tive can be discontinuous only where the function itself is discontinuous.
Cauchy's belief was reasonable in that in the earlier years of his work a
function meant for him, as for others of the eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries, an analytic expression, and the derivative is given at once by the
usual formal rules of differentiation.
In the lB25 paper Cauchy is clearer about a major idea he had already
touched on in the Paper proper of lB14 and in a footnote to that paper. He
considers what happens whenf (z) is discontinuous inside or on the boundary
16. Bull. des Sci. Math., 7, 187+,265-30+, and 8, 1875, 43-55, t48-59; this paper is not in
Cauchy's Gzare.r.
698 FUNcrroNs oF A coMpLEx VARTABLE
of the rectangl e (Fig. 27 .4). Then the value of the integral along two differ-
ent paths may be different. It at z, : a + ib,f(z) is infinite, but the limit
r:l11,e_2,)f(z)
exists, that is, iflhas a simple pole at zr, then the difference in the integrals
is +2tt/ - lF. Thus for the function ;[ (z) : t l(t * z2), which is infinite
at 2 : 1/-l,so thata : 0 and D : 1,
(2r) F : lim
x+(y-\\/= : -\/=
--- 2--'
;:g t, + fu + t'1t/--t11x + (y - t)t/ -t1
The quantity F itself is what Cauchy called the risidu intigral (integral
residue) in his Exercices fu mathtimatique.lT Also, when a function has several
poles in the region bounded by the two paths of integration, Cauchy points
out that one must take the sum of the residues to get the difference in the
integrals over the two paths. In this particular section on residues his two
paths still form a rectangle, but he takes a very large one and lets the sides
become infinite in length to include all the residues.
In the Ezcrcires 18 Cauchy points out that the residue ofrf(z) at z, is also
the coefficient of the term (. - -1 in the development of;f(z) in powers
of z - zr. Much later, in a paper "r)of l84l,re Cauchy gives a new expression
for the residue at a pole, namely,
F(2,) : El.fk)]",: {*[*to''

where the integral is taken around a small circle enclosing z : zr. The
concept and development of residues is a major contribution by Cauchy.
His immediate use of all of his results thus far was to evaluate definite
integrals.
It is evident from what Cauchy added in the footnotes to his l8l4
paper and from what he wrote in the masterful paper of lB25 that he must
.
have thought long and hard to realize that some relations between pairs of
real functions achieve their simplest form when complex quantities are
introduced. Just how much he may have learned from the work ofGauss and
Poisson is not known.
During the years lB30 to lB3B, when he lived in Turin and in Prague,
his publications were disconnected. He refers to them and repeats most of
the work in his Exereiles d'analyse et de phgsique mathimatique (4 vols., lB40-47).
17. Four vols., 1826-30: (Euures, (2),6-9.

18. Vol. l, 1826,23-37 : (Ew)res, (2),6,23-3?.
19. Excrcices d'analgse et de physique mqrhemqtique, Vol. 2, 1841, 4&t 12 = @uuns, (2), 12,
48-r 12.
THE FouNDATToN oF coMPLEx ruNcrroN THEoRY 6gg
In a paper of l83l, published later,2o he obtained the following theo-

rem: The functionrf(z) can be expanded according to Maclaurin's formula
in a power series that is convergent for all z whose absolute value is smaller
than those for which the function or its derivative ceases to be finite or
continuous. (The only singularities Cauchy knew at this time were what
we now call poles.) He shows that this series is less term for term than a
convergent geometric series whose sum is
Z
(")
z-z -f
where Z is the first value for which;t(z) is discontinuous and ;f(z) is the
largest value of lf(z)l fot all z whose absolute value equals lZl. Thus
Cauchy gives a powerful and easily applied criterion for the expansibility
of a function in a Maclaurin series which uses a comparison series now called
a majorant series.
In the proof of the theorem he first shows that
f(") : *'l-.4@, '

where Z : -T
lzleto. This result is practically what we now call the Cauchy
integral formula. He then expands the fraction zl(z - z) in a geometric
series in powers of zl2 and proves the theorem ProPer.
In this theorem too Cauchy assumes the existence and continuity ofthe
derivative as necessarily following from the continuity of the function itself'
By the time he reproduced this material in his Exetcices, he had exchanged
correspondence with Liouville and Sturm and added to the statement of
the above theorem that the region of convergence ends at that value of z for
which the function and its derivative cease to be finite or continuous. But he
was not convinced that one must add conditions on the derivative and in
later works he dropped them.
In another major paper on complex function theory, "Sur les int6-
grales qui s'6tendent i tous les points d'une courbe fermde,"2t Cauchy
relates the integral ofan [analytic)"f@ : a * iu around a curve bounding
a [simply connected] area to an inregral over the area. Thus if u and a ate
functions of x and y,
:
I (X - ?\ o. dv I " da + ! " a*
(22) I
* * ds : [ -"d* + |,, du,
I I (fr *)
20. Conp. Rcwl., 4., 1837, 216-218 = (Euurcs, O) ' a, 38-a2; see also Exerciccs d'analysc ct de
phgsique nathimatique, Yol, 2, 1841, 48-l l2 : CEurtres, (2), 12, +8-112,
21. Conp. ReruL.,23, 1846, 251-55 : CEutrest (l)' 10, 70-74.
64o FUNcrIoNs oF A coMpLEx VARTABLE
where the double integrals are over the area and the single integrals over
the bounding curve. Now, in view of the Cauchy-Riemann equations
(cf. [3]), the left sides are 0 and the two right sides are the integrals that
appear in
[*ta":1 (u+io)(dx+idy): Ir* - rdy) *,7 (udg + tdx).

lJence fk) dz : 0, and Cauchy has a new proof of the basic theorem on
I
independence of the path. He proves the theorem for a rectangle and then
generalizes to a closed curve that does not cut itselL (The theorem was also
obtained independently by Weierstrass in lB42). Whether Cauchy got this
more fertile formulation of his earlier ideas by learning of Green's work in
l82B (Chap. 28, sec. 4) is not certain, but there are such indications,
because Cauchy extended the above result to areas on curved surfaces.
In the above-mentioned paper of 1846 and another ofthe same year,22
Cauchy changed his viewpoint toward complex lunctions as against his
work of IBl4, 1825, and 1826. Instead of being concerned with definite
integrals and their evaluation, he turned to complex function theory proper
and to building a base for this theory. In this second paper of 1846, he
gives a new statement that involves I-fk) a" around an arbitrary closed
curve: If the curve encloses poles, then the value of the integral is 2zi times
the sum of the residues of the function at these poles; that is,
(23) az : 2,iE[_f(z)],
.[rct
where E[1[Q)l is his notation for the sum of the residues.
He also took up the subject of the integrals of multiple-valued func-
tions.23 In the first part of the paper, where he treats integrals of single-
valued functions, he does not state much more than what Gauss had pointed
out in his letter to Bessel apropos of I axlx o, I ar1\ * x2). The integrals
are indeed multiple-valued and their values depend on the path of
integration.
But Cauchy goes further to consider multiple-valued functions under
the integral sign. Here he says that il the integrand is an expression lor the
roots of an algebraic or transcendental equation, for example, J u3 dz where
tos : z, and if one integrates over a closed path and returns to the starting
point, then the integrand now represents another root. In these cases the
value of the integral over the closed path is not independent of the starting
22. " Sur les intdgrales dans lesquelles la fonction sous le signe J change brusquement de
valeur," Comp. Rend.,23, 1846,537 and 557-69 : (Euures, (l), 10, 133-34 and 135-43.
23. " Considdrations nouvelles sur les int6grales difinies qui s'itendent e tous les points
d'une courbe fermde," Comp. Rend.,23, 18+6,689-702 : @wres, (l), 10, 153-68.
THE FOUNDATION OF COMPLEX FUNCTION THEORY 64,
point; and continuation around the path produces different values of the
integral. But if one goes around the path enough times so that z, returns to
its original value, then the values ofthe integral will repeat and the integral
is a periodic function of z. The periodicity modules (indiees de piriodicittl) ol
the integral are not any longer, as in the case of single-valued functions,
representable by residues. Cauchy's ideas on the integrals of multiple-
valued functions were still vague.
For about twenty-five years, from 1821 on, Cauchy singlehandedly
developed complex function theory. In lB43 fellow countrymen began to
take up threads of his work. Pierre-Alphonse Laurent (1813-54), who
worked alone, published a major result obtained in I 843. He showed
ea
that where a function is discontinuous at an isolated point, in place of a

Taylor's expansion one must use an expansion in increasing and decreasing
powers of the variable. If the function and its derivative are single-valued
and continuous in a ring whose center is the isolated point a, then the
integral of the function taken over the two circular boundaries of the ring
but in opposite directions and properly expanded gives a convergent ex-
pansion within the ring itself and with increasing and decreasing powers of
z. This Laurent expansion is
(2+) -f(,) :)a,Q - a)"
and is an extension of the Taylor expansion. The result was known to

Weierstrass in 1841 but he did not publish it.25
The subject of multiple-valued functions was taken up by Victor-
Alexandre Puiseux. In 1850 Puiseux published a celebrated paper26 on
complex algebraic functions given by f (u, z) : 0,-f a polynomial inuand z'
He first made clear the distinction between poles and branch-points that
Cauchy barely perceived and introduced the notion of an essential singular
point (a pole of infinite order), to which Weierstrass independently had
called attention. Such a point is exemplified by e|t' at z:0. Though
Cauchy in the 1846 paper did consider the variation of simple multiple-
valued functions along paths that enclosed branch-points, Puiseux clarified
this subject too. He shows that if u, is one solution of f (u, z) : 0 and z
varies along some path, the final value ofal does not depend upon the path,
provided that the path does not enclose any point at which u, is infinite or
any point where z, becomes equal to some other solution (that is, a branch-
point).
24. Conp. Rend., 17 , 1843,348-49; the full paper was published in tt,e Jour' dc I'E'cob Poly',
23, 1863,75-20+.
25. Werlw, l, 5l-66.
26. Jour. de Math., 15, 1850, 365-480.
Puiseux also showed that the development of a function of z about a

branch-point z:4 must involve fractional powers of z - a. He then
improved on Cauchy's theorem on the expansion of a function in a
Maclaurin series. Puiseux obtains an expansion for a solution u off (u, z) : 0
not in powers ofz but in powers of z - c and therefore valid in a circle with
, as center and not containing any pole or branch-point. Then Puiseux lets
a vary along a path so that the circles olconvergence overlap and so that the
development within one circle can be extended to another. Thus, starting
with a value ofz at one point, one can follow its variation along any path.
By his significant investigations of many-valued functions and their
branch-points in the complex plane, and by his initial work on integrals of
such functions, Puiseux brought Cauchy's pioneering work in function
theory to the end of what might be called the first stage. The difficulties in
the theory of multiple-valued functions and integrals ofsuch functions were
still to be overcome. Cauchy did write other papers on the integrals of
multiple-valued functions,2T in which he attempted to follow up on
Puiseux's work; and though he introduced the notion of branch-cuts
(ligncs d'anil), he was still confused about the distinction bet\ /een poles and
branch-points. This subject of algebraic functions and their integrals was
to be pursued by Riemann (sec. 8).
In several other papers in the Comptcs Rendus for l85l,28 Cauchy gave
some more careful statements about properties of complex functions. In
particular, Cauchy affirmed that the continuity of the derivatives, as well
as the continuity of the complex function itself, is needed for expansion in
a power series. He also pointed out that the derivative at z : a of z as a
function ofz is independent ofthe direction in the x i ig plane along which
z approaches a and that u satisfies A2ul1xz a 02ul0y2 : g.
In these l85l papers Cauchy introduced new terms. He used rzozo-
typique and, also monodrome when the function was single-valued for each
value of z in some domain. A function is monogcn if for each z it has just one
derivative (that is, the derivative is independent of the path). A mono-
drome, monogenic function that is never infinite he called synectique. Later
Charles A. A. Briot (l8l7-82) and Jean-Claude Bouquet (l8l9-85) intro-
duced " holomorphic " in place of synectiquc and " meromorphic " if the
function possessed just poles in that domain.
5. Weierstrass's Approach to Function Theory

While Cauchy was developing function theory on the basis of the deriva-
tives and integrals of functions represented by analytic expressions, Karl
27. Con!. Rend.,32, 1851,68-75and 162-64 = (Euares, (l), 11,292-300 and 30,$-5.
28. @uares, (l), ll.
\^/EIERSTRASS'S APPROACH TO FUNCTION THEORY 6+s
Weierstrass developed a new approach. Born in Westphalia in l8l5,

Weierstrass entered the University of Bonn to study law. Alter four years in
this effort he turned to mathematics in I B3B but did not complete the
doctoral work. Instead he secured a state license to become a ggmnasium
(high school) teacher and from l84l to 1854 he taught youngsters such
subjects as writing and gymnastics. During these years he had no contact
with the mathematical world, though he worked hard in mathematical
research. The few results he published during this period secured for him in
l856 a position teaching technical subject matter in the Industrial Institute
in Berlin. In that same year he became a lecturer at the University of
Berlin and then professor in 1864. He remained in this post until he died in
I897.
He was a methodical and painstaking man. Unlike Abel, Jacobi, and
Riemann he did not have flashes of intuition. In fact he distrusted intuition
and tried to put mathematical reasoning on a firm basis. Whereas Cauchy's
theory rested on geometrical foundations, Weierstrass turned to construct-
ing the theory ofreal numbers; when this was done (Chap. 4l , sec. 3), about
lB4l, he built up the theory of analytic functions on the basis of power
series, a technique he learned from his teacher Christof Gudermann (l 798-
lB52), and the process of analytic continuation. This work was performed
in the l840s, though he did not publish it then' He contributed to many
other topics in the theory offunctions and worked on the z-body problem in
astronomy and in the theory of light.
It is difficult to date Weierstrass's creations because he did not publish
many when he first achieved them. Much of what he had done became
known to the mathematical world through his lectures at the University of
Berlin. When he published his Werke in the lB90s, he did not worry about
priority because many of his results had been published by others in the
meantime. He was more concerned to present his method of developing
function theory.
Power series to represent complex functions already given in analytical
form were, of course, known. However, the task, given a power series that
defines a function in a restricted domain, to derive other power series that
define the same function in other domains on the basis of theorems on
power series, was tackled by Weierstrass. A power series in z - a that is
convergent in some circle C of radius r about 4 rePresents a function that is
analytic at each value of z in the circle C. By choosing a point 6 in the circle
and using the values of the function and its derivatives as given by the
original series, one may be able to obtain a new power series in z - D
whose circle of convergence C' overlaps the first circle. At the points com-
mon to the two circles the two series give the same value of the function'
However, at the points of C' which are exterior to C, the values of the second
series are an analytic continuation ol the function defined by the first
644 FUNcrroNs oF A coMpLEx vARTABLE
series. By continuing as far as possible from C' successively to still other

circles, one obtains the entire analytic continuation of f (z). The complete
/(z) is the collection ofvalues at all points z in all of the circles. Each series
is called an element of the function.
It is possible that, during the extension of the domain of the function
by the adjunction of more and more circles of convergence, one of the new
circles may cover part ol a circle not immediately preceding it in the chain
and the values of the function in this common part of the new circle and an
earlier one may not agree. Then the function is multiple-valued.
The singular points (poles or branch-points) that may arise in this
process, which necessarily lie on the boundaries of the circles of convergence
of the power series, are included in the function by Weierstrass if the
order of a singular point is finite, because at such a point an expansion in
powers of (" - having only a finite number of terms with negative
"o)''" To obtain expansions about z: @ l/Veierstrass uses
exponents is possible.
series in I /2. If the function element converges in the entire plane, Weierstrass
calls it an entire function, and if it is not a rational integral function, that
is, not a polynomial, then it has an essential singularity at @ (e.g. sin z).
Weierstrass also gave the first example of a power series whose circle ol
convergence is its natural boundary; that is, the circle is a curve ofsingular
points, and an example ofan analytic expression that can represent differcnt
analytic functions in different parts of the plane.
6. Elliptic Functions
Paralleling the development ol the basic theorems of complex function
theory during the first halfofthe century was a special development dealing
with elliptic and later Abelian functions. There is no doubt that Gauss
obtained a number ofkey results in the theory of elliptic functions, because
many of these were found after his death in papers he had never published.
However, the acknowledged founders of the theory of elliptic functions are
Abel and Jacobi.
Niels Henrik Abel (1802-29) was the son of a poor pastor. As a student
in Christiania (Oslo), Norway, he had the luck to have Berndt Michael
Holmbtie (1 795-1850) as a teacher. The latter recognized Abel's genius
and predicted when Abel was seventeen that he would become the greatest
mathematician in the world. Alter studying at Christiania and at Copen-
hagen, Abel received a scholarship that permitted him to travel. In Paris
he was presented to Legendre, Laplace, Cauchy, and Lacroix, but they
ignored him. Having exhausted his funds, he departed for Berlin and spent
the years 1825-1827 with Crelle. He returned to Christiania so exhausted
that he found it necessary, he wrote, to hold on to the gate ofa church. To
earn money he gave lessons to young students. He began to receive attention
ELLTPTTc FUNcrIoNs 64s
through his published works, and crelle thought he might be able to secure
him a professorship at the University of Berlin. But Abel became ill with
tuberculosis and died in I829.
Abel knew the work of Euler, Lagtange, and Legendre on elliptic
integrals and may have gotten suggestions for the work he undertook from
,.-i.k. made by Gauss, especially in his Disquisitiones Arithmeticac ' He
himself started to write papers in 1825. He presented his major Paper on
integrals to the Academy ol Sciences in Paris on October 30, 1826, for
pubiication in its journal. This paper, " M6moire sur une propri€t6 g6ndrale
d'u.,e clas.. tres-dtendue de fonctions transcendantes," contained Abel's
great theorem (sec. 7). Fourier, the secretary of the Academy at the time,
iead the introduction to the paper and then referred the paper to Legendre
and Cauchy for evaluation, the latter being chiefly responsible' The paper
was long and difficult, only because it contained many new ideas' Cauchy
laid it aside to favor his own work. Legendre forgot about it. After Abel's
death, when his fame was established, the Academy searched for the paper,
found it, and published it in lB4l.2e Abel published other papers in crclle's
Journal and, Gergonne,s Annales on the theory of equations and elliptic
functions. These appeared from lB27 on. Because Abel's main paper of 1826
was not published until I B4l, other authors, learning the more limited
theorems published in between these dates, obtained independently many
of Abel's 1826 results.
The other discoverer of elliptic functions was Carl Gustav Jacob
Jacobi(1804-51).UnlikeAbel,helivedaquietlife'BorninPotsdamtoaa
jewish iamily, he studied at the I;niversity of Berlin and in lB27 became
"p.of.r.o, at kOnigsberg. In lB42 he had to give up his post because of ill
irealth. He was given a pension by the Prussian government and retired to
Berlin, where ne aiea in 1851. His fame was great even in his own lifetime,
and his students spread his ideas to many centers'
for many years' His
Jacobi taught the subject of elliptic functions
.pp.:ou"h to it became the model according to which the theory of functions
itr.r*u.developed.Healsoworkedinfunctionaldeterminants(Jacobians),
ordinary and partial differential equations, dynamics, celestial mechanics,
fluiddynamics,andhyperellipticintegralsandfunctions'Jacobihasoften
been labeled a pure mathematician, but, like almost all mathematicians
of
his own and preceding centuries, he took most seriously the investigation of
nature.
While Abel was working on elliptic functions, Jacobi, who had also
read Legendre,s work on elliptic integrals, started work in 1827 on the corre-
spondirr! functions. He submitted a paper to the Astronomische Nachrichtenso
*itho,t"p.oof,. Almost simultaneously, Abel published independently his
29. Min. des sao. itrangers, 7 , l8+1, 176-264 : CEuores, 145-21 '
l
30, Astron. Nach.,6, 1827,33-38 : We*e, l, 3l-36'

6+6 ruNcrroNs oF A coMpLEx vARTABLE
" Recherches sur les fonctions elliptiques." 31 Both had arived at the key
idea of working with inverse functions of the elliptic integrals, an idea
Abel had had since 1823. Jacobi next gave proofs of the results he had
published in lB27 in several atticles of Crelle's Journal for the years 1B2B to
1830. Thereafter, both published on the subject of elliptic functions; but
whereas Abel died in 1829, Jacobi lived until l85l and was able to publish
much more. In particular, Jacobi's Fundamenta Noua Theoriac Furutionum
Elliptitarum of 182932 became a key work on elliptic functions.
Through letters from Jacobi, Legendre became familiar with Jacobi's
and Abel's work. He wrote toJacobi on February 9, 1828, " It is a great satis-
faction to me to see two young mathematicians so successfully cultivate a
branch of analysis which has long been my favorite field, but not at all
received as it deserves in my own country." Legendre then published three
supplements (1829 and 1832) to his Traiti d.cs fonctions elliptiques (2 vols.,
1825-26), in which he gave accounts ofJacobi's and Abel's work.
The general elliptic integral concerns
f_
(2s) u: )R(x,{P1x1'1,
where P(.r) is a third or fourth degree polynomial with distinct roots and
R(x, y) is a rational function of x and y. The efforts to deduce some general
facts about the function z of r had to fail because the very meaning of the
integral was limited for Euler and Legendre. The coefficients of P(x) were
real, and the range of * was real and moreover did not contain a root of
P(*) : 0. With more knowledge of the theory of complex functions some
advance might have been made in learning something about u as a function
of *, but this knowledge was not available. As it turned out, Abel and
Jacobi had a better idea.
To be specific, Legendre had introduced (Chap. 19, sec. 4) the elliptic
integrals F(k,i), E(k,il, and r(n,k,il. lt was Abel who, about 1826,
observed that if, to consider F(k, $) for example, one studied
(26)
":l: \rT=-ew=wa dx
_t'Jo d6
1-- 7z
1/ 6'
"inz
where x : sin d, then one encountered the same difficulties as when one
studied
u:f' dx : arcsinr.
Jo 1/1 - *z
The nicer relationships come from studying r as a function of rz. Hence Abel
proposed to study * as a function of z in the case of the elliptic integrals.
Since x : sin d, one can also study / as a function ofz.
31. Jour. fir Math.,2, 1827, l0l-€1, and 3, 1828, l6G-90 : (Euares,263-388.
32. Werk, 1,49-239.
ELLIPTIC FUNCTIONS 6+l
33 the notation
Jacobi introduced
4: o*u
for the function $ of u defined by (26). He also introduced
cos{ : cosamu and A6 : Lo*u : \/T---iEl;, E.
This notation was abbreviated by Gudermann to
,: sind: sin arnu: snu, cos/: cos arnu : cnu,
L,$ : L,amu: dnu.
We have at once that

snzu+ cnzu:1, dn2u * k2sn2u:1.
If { is changed to -{, then u changes sign. Hence
am(-u) : -am u, sn(-u) : -5n u, cn(- u) : 6n u,
dn(-u) : alnY.
The role of zr in the trigonometric functions is played here by the

quantityrK defined by
f1 dt
K:
)o \F -AG=-ee
Associated with .I( is the transcendental quantity i(', which is the same
function of /r' as r( is of fr and where i' is defined by k2 + k'2 : l,
0 < * < l.
What is important (but not proved here) about r( and r('is that
sn(u + 4K) : 5nq cn(u + 4K) : cnu, dn(u + 2K) : dnu.
Hence 4I( is a period of the elliptic functions sn u and, cn u, znd 2K is a

period of dn u.
The functions sn u) cn u, and dn u are defined thus far for real x and u.
Abel had what he regarded as an element ofeach function because each was
defined just for real values. His next thought was to define the elliptic
functions in their totality by introducing contplex values of z. As for the
knowledge of complex functions, Abel in his visit to Paris had become
acquainted with Cauchy's work. He had in fact studied the binomial
theorem for complex values ofthe variable and the exponent. The extension
first to pure imaginary values was achieved by what is called Jacobi's
imaginary transformation. Abel introduced
sind:itand, .orO:;!,
cos I
^(s,r)
:*#,
33. Fundamenta Noaa, 1829.
6+8 FUNCTIONS OF A COMPLEX VARIABLE
where d : am i u, so that
sn(iu,k) : r'm, cn(iu,k)

I
cn(u, h')'
dn(iu,k):ffi#
In addition to allowing his variables to take on pure imaginary values,
Abel also developed rvhat is called the addition theorem for elliptic functions.
In the case where
u: A(x) : Jof. t/l-La, x2

-
we know that the integral is the multiple-valued function l(x) : 216 .;r, *,
and it is true that
(27) A(x) + A(*r) : A(xg2 * x2g),

wherein y, and 92 are the corresponding cosine values; i.e. !, : \/l
But in this case a great simplification is obtained by introducing-. the
inverse function .{ : sin z, which is single-valued, and in place ol (27) we
have the familiar addition theorem for the sine function' Now in the case of
t_ lx dx
u: E(x) - J, \/R(4
where y2 : .lt(r) is a polynomial of degree four, Euler had obtained the
addition theorem (Chap. 19, sec. 4)
E(x)+E(x,):E(xs)
where is a known rational function of xr, tr, gy and y2, and y : \/F6.
*.
Abel thought that for the inverse lunction * : 6(u) there might be a simple
addition theorem, and this proved to be the case. This result too appeared
in his lB27 paper. Thus for real u and tt
: snucnadna + snoenudnu
(28) sn(u + u)
| - k2snz u sn2 u
with analogous formulas lor cn(u a o) and dn(u 1 a). These are the addition
theorems for elliptic functions and the analogues of the addition theorems
for elliptic integrals.
Having defined the elliptic functions for real and imaginary values of
the arguments, Abel was able with the addition theorems to extend the
definitions to complcx values. For, if z : u ! ir,sn z : sn(u a iz) nowhas
a meaning in view of the addition theorem, in terms of the sn, cn, and dn
of u and of la separately.
6+g
z+4K+2iK',
Figure 27.5
It also follows that

sn(iu + 2iK', k) : sn(iu, k)
(2s) en(iu * 4iK', k) : cn(iu, k)
dn(iu-r 4iK',k) : dn(iu,k).
Thus the periods (which are not unique) of sn z are 4K and 2i.r('; those of
en z are 4K and 2K + 2iK'; and those of dn z ate 2K and 4irK'. The im-
portant point about the periods is that there are two periods (whose ratio
is not real), so that the elliptic functions are doubly periodic. This was one
of Abel's great discoveries. The functions are single-valued. They need,
therefore, to be studied only in one parallelogram (Fig. 27.5) of the
complex plane, for they repeat their behavior in every congruent parallelo-
gram. Elliptic functions besides being single-valued and doubly periodic,
have only one essential singularity, at @. In fact these proPerties can be used
to define elliptic functions. They do have poles within each period
parallelogram.
Though Abel had taken from Legendre what could have been the
cream of his life's work by introducing the idea of the inversion of elliptic
integrals, which Legendre overlooked and which proved to be the key to
exploring them, Legendre praised Abel by saying, " What a head this
young Norwegian has." Charles Hermite said Abel left ideas on which
mathematicians could work for 150 years'
Many of Abel's results were obtained independently by Jacobi, whose
first publication in this field, as already noted, appeared in 1827. Jacobi was
conscious of the fact that the basic method he used in his Fundamenta Nooa
was unsatislactory and in that book to some extent, and in his subsequent
lectures, used a different starting point. His lectures were never completely
published, but their essential content is fairly well known through letters
and notes made by his pupils. In his new approach he built his theory of
elliptic functions on the basis o[ auxiliary functions called theta functions,
which are illustrated by
(30) 0( z\ : !
.L ,-nzt+rntz.
65o FUNcrroNs oF A coMpLEx vARTABLE
where z and , are complex and, Re(t) > 0. The series converge absolutely
and uniformly in any bounded region of the z-plane. Jacobi introduced
four theta functions and then expressed sn u, cn u, and dn u in terms of these
functions. The theta functions are the simplest elements out of which the
elliptic functions can be constructed. He also obtained various expressions
for the theta functions in the form of infinite series and infinite products.
Further study of ideas in Abel's work led Jacobi to relations between the
theta functions and the theory of numbers. This connection was taken up
Iater by Hermite, Kronecker, and others. The pursuit of relations among
many different forms of theta functions was a major activity for mathema-
ticians of the nineteenth century. It was one of the many fads that sweep
through mathematics regularly.
In an important paper of 1835sa Jacobi showed that a single-valued
function of a single variable which for every finite value of the argument
has the character of a rational function (that is, is a meromorphic function)
cannot have more than two periods, and the ratio ol the periods is neces-
sarily a nonreal number. This discovery opened up a new direction ofwork,
namely, the problem of finding all doubly periodic functions. As early as
184435 Liouville, in a communication to the French Academy of Sciences,
showed how to develop a complete theory of doubly periodic elliptic func-
tions starting from Jacobi's theorem. This theory was a major contribution
to elliptic functions. In the double periodicity Liouville had discovered an
essential property of the elliptic functions and a unifying point ol view lor
their theory, though the doubly periodic functions are a more general class
than those designated by Jacobi as elliptic. However, all the fundamental
properties of elliptic functions do hold for the doubly periodic funoions.
Weierstrass took up the subject of elliptic funcrions about 1860. He
learned Jacobi's work from Gudermann, and Abel's work through his
papers. These impressed him so much that he constantly urged his pupils
to read Abel. For his teacher's certificate he took up a problem assigned to
him by Gudermann, namely, to represent the elliptic functions as quotients
of power series. This he did. In his lectures as a professor he constantly
reworked his theory of elliptic functions.
Legendre had reduced the elliptic integrals to three standard forms
involving the qquare root of a fourth degree polynomial. Weierstrass
arrived at three different forms involving the square root of a third degree
polynomial,36 namely
d*
I .\/4;;=*r .f xdx .f d*
J - t" J \/4F - t,-- r"'J e - a)\/4F=V,*- t"'
34. Jour. far Math., 13, 1835, 55-78 : Werke,2,23-50.
35. Con!. Rend., 19, 1844, l26l-63, and 32, 1851, 450-52.
36. Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. zu Berlin,l882, 443-51 = Werke,2,245-55; see also Werkc, 5.
HYPERELLIPTIc INTEGRALS AND ABEL'S TIIEORBM 65,
and he introduced as the fundamental elliptic function that which results

from " inverting " the first integral. That is, if
dx
": )o \/4F- s,x - es
then the elliptic function * of u is Weierstrass's
x : p(u) : 9@1s, sd.

In order that p(u) should not degenerate into an exponential or trigono-
metric function, it is necessary that the discriminant Sl - 27gZ I 0, or, in
other words, the three roots of the cubic in x should be unequal. Weier-
strass's doubly periodic p(u) plays the role ofsz u in the theory ofJacobi and
furnishes the simplest doubly periodic function. He showed that every
elliptic function can be expressed very simply in terms of p(z) and the
derivative of this function. The " trigonometry " of elliptic functions is
simpler in Weierstrass's approach, but the functions of Jacobi and the
elliptic integrals of Legendre are better for numerical work.
Weierstrass actually started with an element of his p(rz), namely,
p@):** *&su'+ *un + "',

(gr,grcomplex),
which he obtained by solving the differential equation for /x/dz given by the
above integral, and then used the addition theorem for p(u), in a manner
similar to Abel's, to obtain the full function. Weierstrass's work completed,
remodeled, and filled with elegance the theory of elliptic functions.
Though we shall not enter into specific details, we cannot leave the
subject of elliptic functions without mentioning the work of Charles Hermite
(1822-1901), who was a professor at the Sorbonne and at the Ecole Poly-
technique. From his student days on, Hermite constantly occupied himself
with the subject of elliptic functions. In lB92 he wrote, " I cannot leave the
elliptic domain. Where the goat is attached she must graze." He produced
basic results in the theory proper and studied the connection with the theory
of numbers. He applied elliptic functions to the solution o[ the fifth degree
polynomial equation and reated problems of mechanics involving the
functions. He is known also for his proof of the transcendence of a and his
introduction of the Hermite polynomials.
7 . Hyperelliptic Integrals and Abel's Theorem

The successes achieved in the study of the elliptic integrals (25) and the
corresponding functions encouraged the mathematicians to tackle a more
difficult type, hyperelliptic integrals.
652 FUNCTIONS OF A COMPLEX VARIABLE
The hyperelliptic integrals are of the form
(31 )
In6'v;a''
where rR(x, y) is a rational function of x and y, y2 : P(x), and the degree of
P(*) is at least five. When P(r) is of degree five or six, the integrals were
called ultraelliptic in the mid-nineteenth century. To emphasize complex
values it is common to write
a';
(32)
InP' 4
and P(z) is often written as
(33) u2 : P(z) : A(z - er)... (z - e).
Of course z is a multiple-valued function of z.
Among the integrals of the form (32) there are some that are every-
where finite. These basic ones are
fdz f zdz I z!-rdz
(34) u,:
);'"r: ) u'"')ttp:J
"'
where a is given by (33) and p : (n - 2)12 or (n - l)/2 according as z is
even or odd. For n : 6 (and so p : 2), there are two such integrals. The
general integrals (32) have at most poles and logarithmically singular
points, that is, singular points that behave like log z at z : 0. Those in-
tegrals of the first class, that is, those which are everywhere finite and so
have no singular points, can always be expressed in terms of the I integrals
(34), which are linearly independent.
For the case n : 6 (and p: 2) integrals of the second class are
exemplified by
f z2 dz I z3 dz
(3s)
)@,)f,ppi
where P(z) is a polynomial of the sixth degree. The integrals of the first and
second kind for n : 6 have four periods each.
The hyperelliptic integrals are functions of the upper limit z if the
lovVer limit is fixed. Suppose we denote one such function by ra. Then, as in
the case of the elliptic integrals, one can raise the question as to what is the
inverse function z of w. This problem was tackled by Abel, but he did not
solve it. Jacobi then tackled it.3? Let us consider with Jacobi the particular
hyperelliptic integrals
z
(36) ttt : tz dz
I '-----:, and u :t-,f z dz
J o t/ P(z) J" \/pe)
37. Jour. fir Math., 9, 1832, 394-403 : Wulee, 2, 7-16, and Jour, fiir l[ath., 13, 1835,
55-78 : Werke,2,25-50 and 516-21.
HYPERELLIPTIC INTEGRALS AND ABEL,S THEOREM 6sg
where P(z) is a fifth or sixth degree polynomial. Here the determination of

z as a single-valued lunctioh of zo proved to be hopeless. Jacobi showed in
fact that the mere inversion of such integrals with P(z) of degree five did
not lead to a monogenic function. The inverse functions appeared unreason-
able to Jacobi because in each case z as a function of zo is infinitely valued;
such functions were not well understood at the time.
Jacobi decided to consider combinations of such integrals' Guided by
Abel's theorem (see below), whose statement at least he knew because
that much had been published by this time, Jacobi did the following'
Consider the equations
Irzt dz fzz dz
(37)
J" '\/VA ' Jo !@Gi -agt
f zr --l
z dz zz- zdz
t- u2.
(38)
l" t/F@ t t/ P(z) -
Jacobi succeeded in showing that the symmetric functions zL + 22 and
z1Z2 zte each single-valued functions of zo1 and ar, with a system ofllozr
periods. The lunctions z, and z, of the two variables w1 and' w2 can then
te obtained. He also gave an addition theorem for these functions' Jacobi
left many points incomplete. "For Gaussian rigor," he said, "we have no
time."
The study of a generalization of the elliptic and hyperelliptic integrals
was begun by Galois, but the more significant initial steps were taken by
Abel in his 1826 paper. He considered (32), that is,
a''
(3e)
I nP' z1
but in place of (33), where u and z ate connected merely by a polynomial

as in u2 : P(.), Abel considered a general algebraic equation in z and u,
(40) f(u, z) : g.
Equations (39) and (40) define what is called an Abelian integral, which then
includes as special cases the elliptic and hyperelliptic integrals'
Though Abel did not carry the study of Abelian integrals very far, he
proved a key theorem in the subject. Abel's basic theorem is a very broad
generalization of the addition theorem for elliptic integrals (Chap' 19,
sec. 4). The theorem and proof is in his Paris paper of 1826 and the state-
ment of it is in Crelle's Journal for 1829.38 Let us consider the integral
(41)
I n6'4 ax'
38. Jou. fiir Math., 4, 212-15 : (Euares, 515-17.

6S+ FUNcrIoNs or A coMpLEx vARTABLE
where x and y are related by;f(r, !) : 0, J being a polynomial in * and y.

Abel writes as though x and y are real variables, though occasionally
complex numbers Loosely stated, Abel's theorem is this: A sum of
^ppear.
integrals of the form (41) can be expressed in terms ofp such integrals plus
algebraic and logarithmic terms. Moreover, the number p depends only on
the equationyf@, y) :0 and is in fact the genus of the equation.
To obtain a more precise statement, let y be the algebraic function of
* defined by the equation
(42) -f(x,d : !" * Ar!"-r + "' + A" : o,
where the l, are polynomials in r and the polynomial (42) is irreducible
into factors of the same form. Let R(x, y) be any rational function of x and y.
Then the sum of any number m of similar integrals
(43)
1""o"
*(*,r) dx * ... + [<'^*^t R@,g) dx
with fixed (but arbitrary) lower limits is expressible by rational functions of
*1'lt. ,.,.r, and y, and logarithms of such rational functions, with the
addition of a sum of a certain number 1 of integrals
(44) *(*, ,) o*, . . . , R(x, y) dx,

I"''"" ['"''"'
wherein 2b..., zp are values of* determinable from xylu. . ., x^, and y^
as the roots ofan algebraic equation whose coefficients are rational functions
of xr, y r, . . ., r^, and, y and sr, . . ., and .r, are the corresponding values of
y determined by $2) with ^, any
s1 determinable as a rational function of the
zrand thexr,grs . .. t tmt andy,. The relations thus determining (21, sr), . . .,
(2, sr) in terms of (*r,!r), . . ., (x^, g^) must be supposed to hold at all
stages of the integration; in particular these relations determine the lower
limits of the last, integrals in terms of the lower limits of the first rn integrals.
The numberp does not depend on tn nor on the form ofthe rational function
R(*, y), nor on the values rr,y1, '.., *r, and y,, but does depend on the
fundamental equation (42) which relates y and *.
In the case of those hyperelliptic integrals where;f: 92 - P(x) and,
P(*) is a sixth degree polynomial and where 1, which is (n - 2)12, is 2, the
main part of Abel's theorem says that
...
(45)
!i'*,.,,, dx, + * J" R(x,y) dx
: Ii *r-,r, * * I: R@,s) dx * Rr(xt,!t,...t xmtuat A,y(A), B,y(B))
+) const. log Rr(x r, g r, . . . t x ms mt A, y (A), B, y (B)),
!
where .R, and rR2 are rational functions of their variables.

RIEMANN AND MULTIPLE-VALUED FUNCTIONS 6ss
Abel actually calculated the number p for a few cases of general

l@, il : 0. Though he did not see the full significance of his result, he
certainly recognized the notion of genus before Riemann and founded the
subject of Abelian integrals. His paper was very difficult to unde$tand,
partly because he tried to prove what we would today call an existence
theorem by actually computing the result. Later proofs simplified Abel's
considerably (see also Chap. 39, sec. 4). Abel did not consider the inversion
problem. All of the work on the inversion of hyperelliptic and Abelian
integrals up to the entry of Riemann on the scene was hampered by the
limited methods of handling multiple-valued functions.
8. Riemann and Mukiple-Valued Functions

About lB50 one period of achievement in the theory of functions came to
an end. Rigorous methods, such as Weierstrass provided, sharp delineation
of results, and unquestionable existence proofs denote in any mathematical
discipline an important but also the last stage of a developmcnt' Further
development must be preceded by a period offree, numerous, disconnected,
often accidentally discovered, and perhaps disordered creations. Abel's
theorem was one such step. A new period of discovery in the theory of
algebraic functions, their integrals, and the inverse functions is due to
Riemann. Riemann actually offered a much broader theory, namely, the
treatment of multiple-valued functions, thus far only touched upon by
Cauchy and Puiseux, and thereby paved the way for a number of different
advances.
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (1826-66) was a student of Gauss
and Wilhelm Weber. He came to Giittingen in l846 to study theology but
soon turned to mathematics. His doctoral thesis of I 85 I , written under
Gauss, and entitled " Grundlagen fiir eine allgemeine Theorie der Func-
tionen einer veriinderlichen complexen Grtisse " 3e is a basic paper in
complex function theory. Three years later he became a Priaatdozcnt at
G6ttingen, that is, he was privileged to give lectures and charge students a
fee. To qualify as Prioatdozcnt he wrote the Habilitationsschrift, " lJber die
Darstellbarkeit einer Function durch eine trigonometrische Reihe," and
gave a qualifying lecture, the Habititationsaortrag, " Uber die Hypothesen
welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen." These were followed by a
number of other famous papers. Riemann succeeded Dirichlet as a Pro-
fessor of mathematics at G6ttingen in 1859. He died of tuberculosis.
Riemann is often described as a Pure mathematician, but this is far
from correct. Though he made numerous contributions to mathematics
proper, he was deeply concerned with physics and the relationship of
39. Wcrkc, 3-43.

6S6 FUNcrroNs oF A coMpLEx VARIABLE
mathematics to the physical world. He wrote papers on heat, light, the

theory of gases, magnetism, fluid dynamics, and acoustics. He attempted to
unify gravitation and light and investigated the mechanism of the human
ear. His work on the foundations of geometry sought to ascertain what is
absolutely reliable about our knowledge of physical space (Chap. 37). He
himself states that his work on physical laws was his chief interest. As a
mathematician, he used geometrical intuition and physical arguments
freely. It seems very likely, on the basis ol evidence given by Felix Klein,
that Riemann's ideas on complex functions were suggested to him by his
studies on the flow of electrical currents along a plane. The potential
equation is central in that subject and became so in Riemann's approach to
complex functions.
The key idea in Riemann's approach to multiple-valued functions is the
notion of a Riemann surface. The function w2 : z is multiple-valued and
in fact there are two values of zl for each value of z. To work with this
function and keep the two sets of values {2 and - l/ z apart, that is, to
separate the branches, Riemann introduced one plane of z-values lor each
branch. Incidentally he also introduced a point on each plane correspond-
ing to z : co. The two planes are regarded as lying one above the other and
joined, first of all, at those values of z where the branches give the same
ar-values. Thus for w2 : z the two planes, or sheets as they are called, are
joined at z:0andz: @.
Now zo: + \/; is represented by the z-values only on the upper
sheet and . : - 12 by z-values on the lower sheet. As long as one considers
z values on the upper sheet, one understands that one must compute
ut : * l-2, However, as z moves in a circle around the origin on that
sheet (Fig. 27.6) so that the 0 in z : p(cos d 1 I sin 0) varies from 0 to 22,
17. cor.r" one hall of a circle in the complex plane in which the zo-values
are mapped. Now let z move into the second sheet as it crosses, say, the
positive r-axis. As z moves on this second sheet, we take for zo the values
given by uz : - {2. As z makes another circuit of the origin, so that 0
ranges from 2t to 4zr while in the second sheet, we obtain the range of
values of uz : -lZ for this path, and the polar angle of these a;-values
ranges from zr to 2r, As z crosses the positive x-axis again, we regard it as
traveling over the first sheet. Thus by two circuits of z-values around the
origin, one on each sheet, we get the full range of zl-values for the function
toz : z. Moreover, and this is essential, zr; becomes a single-valued function
of z if z ranges over the Riemann surface, which is the aggregate of the two
sheets.
To distinguish paths on one sheet from those on the other we agree in
the case of w2 : z to regard the positive x-axis as a branch-cut, This joins
the points z : 0 and z : @. That is, whenever z crosses this cut, that
branch of ro must be taken which belongs to the sheet into which z passes.
RIEMANN AND MULTIPLE.VALUED FUNCTIONS 6s7
Figure 27.6
The branch-cut need not be the positive *-axis but it must, in the present
case, join 0 and oo. The points 0 and o are called branch-points because
the branches of w2 : z are interchanged when z describes a closed path
about each.
The function u2 : z d\dt consequently, its associated Riemann surface,
are especially simple. Let us consider the function w2 : z3 - z. This
function also has two branches that become equal at z : O, z : l, z : -1,
and z : oo. Moreover, though we shall not present the full argument, all
four of these points are branch-points, because if z makes a circuit around
any one of them the value of zo changes frorn that of one branch to that of
another. The branch-cuts can be taken to be the line segments from 0 to l,
0 to - l, I to co, and - I to o. As z crosses any one of these cuts, the value
of zz changes from those it takes on one branch to those of the second.
For more complicated multiple-valued functions the Riemann surface
is more complicated, An z-valued function requires an z-sheeted Riemann
surface. There may be many branch-points, and one must introduce
branch-cuts joining each two. Moreover the sheets that come together at
one branch-point need not be the same as those that come together at
another. If& sheets coincide at a branch-point, the order ofthe point is said
to be ,t - l. However, two sheets of a Riemann surface may touch at a
point but the branches of the function may not change as z goes completely
around the point. Then the point is not a branch'point.
It is not possible to represent Riemann surfaces accurately in three-
dimensional space. For example, the two sheets for w2 : z must intersect
along the positive r-axis if represented in three dimensions, so that one must
be cut along the positive r-axis, whereas the mathematics requires smooth
passage from the first sheet into the second and then, after a circuit around
z : 0, back to the first sheet again.
Riemann surllaces are not merely a way of portraying multiple-valued
functions but, in effect, make such functions single-valued on the surface as
6S8 FUNcrroNs oF A coMpLEx VARTABLE
opposed to the z-plane. Then theorems about single-valued functions can

be extended to multiple-valued functions. For example, Cauchy's theorem
about integrals of single-aalued functions being 0 over a curye bounding a
domain (in which the function is analytic) was extended by Riemann to
multiple-valued functions. The domain of analyticity must be simply
connected (contractable to a point) on the surfau.
Riemann thought of his surface as an z-sheeted duplication of the
plane, each replica completed by a point at infinity. However, it is difficult
to follow all of the arguments involving such a surface by visualizing in
terms of the z interconnected planes. Hence mathematicians since Rie-
mann's time have suggested equivalent models that are easier to contem-
plate. It is known that a plane may be transformed to a sphere by stereo-
graphic projection (Chap. 7, sec. 5). Hence we can construct a model of
the Riemann surface by considering z concentric spheres of about the same
radius. The sequence of spheres is to be the same as the sequence of plane
sheets. The branch-points of the planes and the branch-cuts are likewise
transformed to the spheres, so that these spheres wind into each other along
branch-cuts. We now think of the set of spheres as the domain of z, and the
multiple-valued function u of z is single-valued on this set of spherical
sh eets.
In our exposition thus far of Riemann's ideas, *. hu,r" started with a
function;f(ra, z) : 0, which is an irreducible polynomial in w and z, and
have pointed out what its Riemann surface is. This was not Riemann's
approach. He started with a Riemann surllace and proposed to show that
therc is an equation;fl(w, z) :0 that belongs to it and, further, that there
are other single-valued and multiple-valued functions defined on this
Riemann surfirce.
Riemann's definition of a single-valued analytic function "f(") :
z * iu is that the function is analytic at a point and in its neighborhood if
it is continuous and diflerentiable and satisfies what we now call the
Cauchy-Riemann equations
0u0a.0u0a
: -- :
(46) :- oy and oy --;-.
orc :- ox
These equations, as we know, appeared in the work of d'Alembert, Euler,

and Cauchy. Incidentally, Riemann was the first to require that the exist-
ence of the derivative dwldz mean that the limit of Arr'/Az must be the
same for eoery apptoach of z * Lz to z. (This condition distinguishes
complex functions, for in the case of a real function u(x, y), the existence of
the first derivatives of z for all directions of approach to some (ro, y6) does
not guarantee analyticity.) He then sought what we might describe as the
minimum conditions under which a function of x * iy could be determined
as a whole in whatever domain it existed. It is apparent from the Cauchy-
RTEMANN AND MULTTpLE-VALUED FUNcrIoNs 6sg
Riemann equations that z and z satisly the two-dimensional potential

equation
02u 02w
(+7)
og-
--L-:tt
Riemann had the idea that the complex function could be determined at
once in the totality of its domain of existence by using the fact that !/
satisfies the potential equation.
Specifically, Riemann suPPoses that a function ro of position on the
Riemann surface is determined, except as to an additive constant, by the
real function u(x, g) if u is subject to the conditions:
(l) It satisfies the potential equation at all points on the surface where
its derivatives are not infinite.
(2) Ifu should be multiple-valued, its values at any Point on the surface
differ by linear combinations of integral multiples of real constants. (These
real constants are the real parts of the periodicity moduli of a;, which we
shall discuss later.)
(3) u may have specified infinities (poles) of given form at assigned
points on the surface. These infinities should belong to the real parts of the
terms that give the infinities of a. He does assume further as a subsidiary
condition that z may have finite values along a closed curve bounding a
portion of the surllace or that i relation between the boundary values of z
and a may exist. Riemann is vague on how general such a relation may be'
These conditions should determine z. Once a is determined, then, in
view of the Cauchy-Riemann equations,
(48) ,:[?H*.4*0,)
Thus a is also determined, and so is u. It is important to note that for
Riemann the domain of z was any Part of a Riemann surface, including
possibly the whole surface. In his doctoral thesis he considered surfaces
with boundaries and only later used closed surfaces, that is, surfaces
without boundaries, such as a torus.
To determine u, Riemann's essential tool was what he called the
Dirichlet principle, because he learned it from Dirichlet; but he extended it
to domains on Riemann surfaces and, moreover, prescribed singularities for
a in the domain and prescribed jumps (conditions 2 and 3 above). The
Dirichlet principle says that the function u that minimizes the Dirichlet
integral
+ (it)')a.av
II{e)',
satisfies the potential equation. The latter isin fact the necessary condition
that the first variation of the Dirichlet integral vanish (see also Chap' 28,
66o FUNCTIoNS oF A coMpLEx VARTABLE
sec. 4). Since the integrand in the Dirichlet integral is positive and so has a
lower bound which is greater than or at worst zero, Riemann concluded
that there must be a function a that minimizes the integral and so satisfies
the potential equation. Thus the existence ol the function rz and therefore
by (aB) of;f(z) which belongs to the Riemann surface and may even have
prescribed singularities and complex jumps (periodicity modules) was
assured as far as Riemann was concerned.
Once the existence of functions on a given Riemann surface as their
domain has been established, one can show that there is a fundamental
equation that can be associated with the given surface; that is, there is an
:
"f(u, r) 0 that has the given surface as its surfiace. Just how the surface
corresponds to the relationship between u and z Riemann does not state.
Actually this ;f(zo, z) : 0 is not unique. As a matter of fact, from every
rational function u, of w and z on the surface one can obtain through
-f (w, ,) : 0 another equation , (rr,,l , z) : O which, if irreducible, has the
same Riemann surface. This is a feature of Riemann's method.
To investigate further the kinds of functions that can exist on a Rie-
mann surface, it is necessary to become acquainted with Riemann,s notion
of the connectivity of a Riemann surface. A Riemann surface may have
boundary curves or be closed like a sphere or a torus. If it is the Riemann
surface ofan algebraic function, that is, if;f(a;, z) : 0 defines zr., as a func-
tion of z and;f is a polynomial in zo and z, then the surface is closed. If /is
irreducible, that is, cannot be expressed as a product of such polynomials,
then the surface consists ofone piece or is said to be connected.
A plane or a sphere is a surface such that any closed curve divides it
into two parts so that it is not possible to pass continuously from a point in
one part to a point in the second without crossing the closed curve. Such a
surface is said to be simply connected. If, however, it is possible to draw
some closed curve on a surface and the curve does not disconnect the
surface, then the surface is not simply connected. For example one may
draw two different closed curves on the torus (Fig.27.7), and even the
presence of both does not disconnect the surface.
Riemann wished to assign a number that indicated the connectivity
of his surface. He regarded the poles and branch-points as part ofthe surface
and because he had algebraic functions in mind, his surfaces were closed.
By removing a small portion of one sheet the surface had a boundary curve
C. He then thought of the surface as cut by a non-self-intersecting curve
which runs from the boundary C to another point of the boundary C. Such
a curve is called a cross-cut (Querschnitt). This cross-cut and C are regarded
as a new boundary and a second cross-cut can be introduced that starts at
one point ofthe (new) boundary and ends at another and does not cross the
(new) boundary.
A sufficient number of these cross-cuts is introduced so as to cut up a
RIEMANN AND MULTIPLE-VALUED FUNCTIONS 66r
Figure 27.
Riemann surface that may be multiply connected into one simply connected
surface. Thus, ifa surface is simply connected, no cross-cut is necessary and
the surf;ace has connectivity (Grundzahl) l. A surface is called doubly con-
nected if by one appropriate cross-cut it is changed into a single simply
connected surface. Then the connectivity is 2. A plane ring and a spherical
surface with two holes are examples. A surface is called triply connected
when by two appropriate cross-cuts it is converted into a single simply
connected surface. Then the connectivity is 3. An example is the (surface of
a) torus with a hole in it. In general a surface will be said to be .tr[-ply
connected or has connectivity i[ if by il - I appropriate cross-cuts it can
be changed into a single surface that is simply connected. A spherical surf,ace
with z holes in it has connectivity N.
It is now possible to relate the connectivity of a Riemann surliace
(with one boundary) and the number of branch-points. Each branch-point,
r,, say, is to be counted according to the multiplicity of the number of
branches of the function which interchange at that point. If the number
is wr, i : 1,2, . . ., r, then the multiplicity of r, is wt - l. Suppose the surface
has 4 sheets. Then the connectivity N is given by
N:>u,-2q*3.
I
One can show that the connectivity .l[ of a closed surf;ace with a single
boundary is2p + l. Hence
2e :>w, - 2q * 2.
The integer p is called the genus of the Riemann surface and of the associ'
ated equationlf(w, z) : 0. This relation was established by Riemann'
A special case of considerable importance is the surface of
w' : (. - a)(z - az)... (. - o),
which has a two-leaved Riemann surface. There are z finite branch-points,

and. z: oo is a branch-point when z is odd. Then 2*r: n or z* I
ara.d 2q : 4. The genus p of the surface is given by
!: [+-
ln t
when z is even
when z is odd.
[2
Given a Riemann surface determined by;f(za, z) : 0, we know that zo
is a single-valued function of the points on the surface. Then every rational
function ofar and z is also a single-valued function of position on the surface
(because we can replace ro in the rational function by its value in terms of
z). AIso the branch-points of this rational function, though not its poles, are
the same as those of.7f, Conversely, one can prove that every single-valued
function of position on the surface having poles of finite order is a rational
function of u and z.
Even in the case of simple single-valued functions defined on the
ordinary plane, the integrals ofsuch functions can be multiple-valued. Thus
f2 dz
u+
J"w: n1r
where ul is the value of the integral along, say, a straight line path from.
0 to z, and n depends upon how the path from 0 to z circles + i. Likewise,
when considering functions single-valued on a Riemann surface, say a
rational function of ar and z on the surface, the integral of such a function
may be multiple-valued. This does indeed occur. If one then introduces
cross-cuts to make the surface simply connected, and if the integral takes a
path from zlto 22, each time the path crosses a cross-cut a constant value I
is added to the basic value Uof the integral for a path on a simply connected
portion of the surface. If the path should cross the cross-cut m times in the
same direction, then the value rnl is added to U. The constant I is called a
periodicity modulus. Each cross-cut introduces its own periodicity modulus,
and if the connectivity of the surface is .try' 1 l, there are .tr[ linearly inde-
pendent periodicity moduli. Let these be f r, Ir,. . . , .Io. Then the value of
the integral of the original single-valued function taken over its original
path is
, U + nrlr a m2ls *... I mrfo
where m1, fltb.. .t zo are integers. The d are generally complex numbers,
ABELIAN INTEORALS AND FUNCTIONS 669
9. Abelian Integrals and Functions

While four important papers Riemann published in the Journal fir Matlu'
matikao repeat many of the ideas in his dissertation, they are primarily
devoted to Abelian integrals and functions. The fourth paper'is the one
that gave the subject its major development. All four were difficult to
understand I "they were a book with seven seals." Fortunately many fine
mathematicians later elaborated on and explained the material. Riemann
pulled together the work of Abel and Jacobi, which stemmed largely from
real functions, and Weierstrass's treatment, which used complex functions.
Since Riemann had clarified the concept of multiple-value functions,
he could be clearer about Abelian integrals. LetJ(w, z) : 0 be the equa-
tion of a Riemann surface and let I R@, z) dzbe an integral of a rational
function of ro and z on this Riemann surface. Riemann classified Abelian
integrals as follows. Among the intcgrals of rational functions of ra and z on
a Riemann surface determined by an equation;f(w, z) :0, there are some
which, though multiple-valued functions on the uncut surface, are every-
where finite. These are called integrals of the first kind. The number of
such linearly independent integrals is equal to the genus p of the surface if
the connectivity is 2y' + l. If the 2p cross-cuts are introduced, each integral
is a single-valued function for a path in a region bounded by cross-cuts. If
the path should cross a cross-cut, then the periodicity moduli we discussed
in the preceding section must be brought in and the value ofthe integral is
this: If h/ is its value from a fixed Point to z, then all possible values are
2p
w+ )^,.,,
r=1
where the are integers and the <,r, are periodicity moduli for this integral.
zn,
The integrals of the second kind have algebraic but not logarithmic
infinities. An elementary integral of the second kind has an infinity of first
order at one point on the Riemann surface. If E(z) is a value of the integral
at one point on the surface (the upper limit of the integral), then all the
values of the. integral are included in
2p
E(z) +2"*,,
where the z, are integers and the e, are the periodicity moduli for this
integral. Two elementary integrals with an infinity at a common point on
the Riemann surface differ by an integral of the first kind. From this we can
infer that there are y' 1 I linearly independent elementary integrals of the
second kind with an infinity at the same point on the Riemann surface.
40. Vol.54, 1857, l15-55 : Wcrhe,88-144.
66+ FUNCTIONS OF A COMPLEX VARIABLE
Integrals having logarithmic infinities are called integrals of the third

kind. It turns out that each must have two logarithmic infinities. If such an
integral has no algebraic infinities, that is, no algebraic terms in the expan-
sion of the integral in the vicinity of either of the points at which it has
logarithmic infinities, then the integral is called an elementary integral ofthe
third kind. There are 1 + I linearly independent elementary integrals ol
the third kind having their logarithmic infinities at the same two points on
the Riemann surface. Every Abelian integral is a sum of integrals of the
three kinds.
The analysis of Abelian integrals sheds light on what kinds offunctions
can exist on a Riemann surface. Riemann treats two classes of functions; the
first consists ofsingle-valued functions on the surface whose singularities are
poles. The second class consists of functions that are one-valued on the
surface provided with cross-cuts but discontinuous along each cross-cut.
Indeed, such a function differs by a complex constant i, on one side of the
vth cross-cut from its value on the other side. This second type of function
may also have poles and logarithmic infinities. Riemann shows that the
functions of the first class are algebraic and those of the second class are
integrals of algebraic [unctions.
There are also everywhere finite functions on the surface. One can
represent such a function by means of functions of the first of the above
classes. One can also build up algebraic functions on a surface by combining
integrals of the second and third kind. Thus Riemann showed that algebraic
functions can be represented as a sum of transcendental functions. Also
single-valued functions algebraically infinite in a given number of points
can be represented by rational functions. A function that is one-valued on
the entire surface is the integrand of an everywhere finite integral. The
function can then be represented as a rational function in zo and z and, cart
have the form $(w, z)lAflAwwhereJ(w, z) : 0 is the equation ofthe surface.
The function {, which enters here and into the construction of integrals of
the first kind, is called the adjoint polynomial of J@, z) : 0. Its degree is
generally z - 3 when the degree offis n.
The importance of rational functions on a Riemann surlace derives
from the fact, just mentioned, that every function single-valued on the
surface and having no essential singularities is a rational function. Such a
function has as many zeros as poles and takes on every value the same
number of times. Moreover, once the equation jf(rr, z) : 0, which defines
the surflace, is fixed, all other functions of position on the surflace are co-
extensive in their totality with rational functions of rl and z and integrals
of such functions.
Weierstrass also worked on Abelian integrals during the 1860s. But he
and the other successors of Riemann in this field set up transcendental
functions from the algebraic functions, the reverse of Riemann's procedure,
ABELIAN INTEGRALS AND FUNCTIONS 66s
They did so because they had reason to distrust the Dirichlet principle.
Weierstrass, in a paper read in l870,al pointed out that the existence ofa
function that minimizes the Dirichlet integral was not established. Riemann
himself was of another mind. He recognized the problem of establishing the
existence of a minimizing function for the Dirichlet integral belore Weier-
strass made his statement, but declared that the Dirichlet principle was just
a convenient tool that happened to be available; the existence ofthe function
z, he said, was nevertheless correct. Helmholtz's remark on this point is also
interesting: ". . . for us physicists the [use ofthe] Dirichlet principle remains
a proof." a2
Another of the new investigations in complex function theory that
Riemann launched is the inversion of Abelian integrals, that is, to deter-
mine the function z of u when
u : R(2, u) dz
Jo
and of course u and z are related by an algebraic equation. The function

z of u is not only multiple-valued but is not clearly definable. As in the case
of hyperelliptic integrals, Riemann took sums of p Abelian integrals and
defined new Abelian functions of p variables that are one-valued and 2p-tuply
periodic. By a 2p-ttply periodic function ofp-variables is meant that there
exist 2p sets of quantities e)1y, tD2y1 ..., o)pk' k : Li2,,.,,2p, each set con-
taining a period of each of the 1-variables. Riemann proved that a single-
valued function cannot have more than 2p sets of simultaneous periods. The
Abelian functions, expressed in terms of theta functions in p-variables, are
generalizations of the elliptic functions.
One of the noteworthy results on functions on a Riemann surface of
genus y' is now known as the Riemann-Roch theorem. The work on this
result was begun by Riemann and completed by Gustav Roch (1839-66).{a
Essentially, the theorem determines the number of linearly independent
meromorphic functions on the surface that have at most a specified finite
set of poles. More specifically, suppose zo is a single-valued function on the
surface and has poles of first order ht the points cy . . ,, c^, but not else-
where. The positions cs need not be independent. If q linearly independent
functions (adjoint functions) vanish on them, then ar contains n - P +
4 * I arbitrary constants. It is a Iinear combination of arbitrary multiples
ol m - p + 4 functions, each having P - C + I poles of the first order,
p - q of which are common to all the functions in the combination.
41. Werlw,2, 49-54.
42. For the subsequent history of thc Dirichlet problem and Dirichlet principle, see
Chap. 28, secs. 4 and 8.
43. Jour. f'nr Math., 64, 186+, 372-76.
lO. Conformal Mapping

To complete the theory of his doctoral thesis, Riemann closes with some
applications of the theory of functions to conformal mapping. The general
problem of conformal mapping of a plane into a plane (which comes from
map-making) was solved by Gauss in 1825. His result amounts to the fact
that such a conformal map is set up by any analytic f (z)-though Gauss
did not use complex function theory. Riemann knew that an analytic
function establishes a conformal mapping from the z- to the zo-plane, but
he was concerned to extend this to Riemann surfaces. Thus a new chapter
in conformal mapping was opened up.
At the close of his thesis Riemann gives the following theorem: Two
given simply connected plane surfaces (he includes simply connected
domains on Riemann surfaces) can be mapped one-to-one and conformally
on each other, and one inner point and one boundary point on one surface
can be assigned to arbitrarily chosen inner and boundary points on the
other. Thereby the entire mapping is determined. This theorem contains
as a special case the basic result that, given any simply connected domain
D with a boundary that contains more than one point and given a point z4
of this domain and a direction T at this point, there exists a function
w : Jk) that is analytic in D and maps D conformally and biuniquely into
a circle of radius I centered at the origin of the ra-plane. Under this map-
ping ,.4 goes into the origin and 7 is sent into the direction of the positive
real axis. This latter statement is usually described as the Riemann
mapping theorem.
Riemann proved his theorem by using the Dirichlet principle, but
since this principle was found faulty at the time, the mathematicians sought
a sound proof. Carl Gottfried Neumann and Hermann Amandus Schwarz
did prove (1870) that one could map a simply connected plane region onto
a circle. However, they could not handle multileaved simply connected
domains.
Incidentally, the emphasis on mapping a simply connected region
conformally on a circle is explained by the fact that, to map one simply
connected region on another conformally, it is sufficient to map each
on a circle and then a product of two conformal mappings will do the
trick.
While the proof of the Riemann mapping theorem remained open, a
number of special results on conformal mapping were obtained. Of these a
most useful one for the solution of partial differential equations was given
by Schwarzaa and Elwin Bruno Christoffel.as Their theorem shows how to
map a polygon and its interior (Fig.27.B) in the z-plane conformally into
44. Jour. fnr Moth.,70, 1869, 105-20 : Ges. Abh.,2, 65-83.

45. Annali di Mat., (2), l, 1867, 95-103, and, (2),4, 1871, l-9 : Cu. 4bh.,2,56ff.
REPRESENTATION OF FUNCTIONS AND EXCEPTIONAL VALUES 662
)t)
Figure 27.8
the upper half of the ar-plane. The mapping is given by

lz
, : c I @-
Ja
a)@11"-1(u - b)(atat-l.. -dw * c"
where c ar,d c' are determinable from the position ofthe polygon and where
a, b, c, .. ., correspond to A, B, C, . . '. The mapping has proved to be very
useful in solving the potential (Laplace) equation.
ll. The Representation oJ Functions and Exceptional Values

The development of complex function theory proceeded apace in the latter
part of the nineteenth century, and we shall have occasion in later chapters
to consider some of these developments. However, a few of the many
creations that bear primarily on complex functions themselves will be noted
here.
Among single-valued complex functions, the entire functions, that is,
those having no singularities in the finite part of the plane, which includes
polynomials, d, sin z, and cos z, proved to be of considerable interest
because they are roughly the analogues of the elementary real functions.
For such functions Liouville's theorem states that every bounded entire
function is a constant.a6 Weierstrass extended to entire lunctions the
theorem on the decomposition of real polynomials into linear factors. The
theorem Weierstrass established,a? which probably dates from the 1840s, is
called the factorization theorem, and states: If G(z) is an entire function
that does not vanish identically but has an infinite number of roots (that is,
is not a polynomial), then G(z) can be written as the infinite product
G(z) : t(z)z^l=l (, - *)**",

46. The theorem is due to Cauclrry (Comp. Rcr.d.' 19, 1844, 1377-'Sl : (Euurcs, (l)' 8,
378-85). C. W. Borchardt heard it in Liouville's lectures of 1847 and attributed the
theorem to him.
47. Abh. Kitnie. Akarl, der l{ziss., Berlin, 1876, I l-60 = Wcrkc,2, 77-12+.
where
s"e) :;.;(;)' +...+ ;L:Y"

f(z) is an entire function having no zeros; the anarethe zeros ofG(z);and
zm represents the zero at z :
0 of multiplicity m if G(z) has such a zero.
The individual flactors of the products are called the prime factors ol G(z).
Next to entire functions in order of complexity are the meromorphic
functions, which can have only poles in the finite region of the complex
plane. In his paper ol l876a8 Weierstrass showed that a meromorphic func-
tion can be expressed as the quotient of two entire functions. The theorem
was extended by Grista Mittag-Leffier (1846-1927) in a paper of 1877 .ae
A function meromorphic in an arbitrary region can be expressed as the
quotient ol two functions, cach analytic in the region. In both Weierstrass's
and Mittag-Leffi.er's theorems the numerator and denominator do not
vanish al the same point in the region.
Another topic that has engaged the attention of numerous mathe-
maticians is the range of values that various types of complex functions can
take on. A series ofresults was obtained by (Charles) Emile Picard (1856-
1941), a professor of higher analysis at the Sorbonne and permanent
secretary of thc Paris Academy of Sciences. Picard in lB7950 showed that
an entire function can omit at most one finite value without reducing to a
constant, and if there exist at least two values, each of which is taken on
only a finite number of times, then the function is a polynomial. Otherwisc
the function takes on every value, other than the exceptional one, an
infinite number of times. Il the function is meromorphic, infinity being an
admissible value, at most two values can be omitted without the function
reducing to a cotrstant,
In this same paper he extended a result ofJulian W. Sochozki (1842-
1927) and Weierstrass and proved that in any neighborhood ofan isolated
essential singular point a function takes on all values, with the possible
exception of at most one (finite) value. The result is deep and has a multi-
tude ofconsequences. Indeed a number ofother results and alternative prools
were created, which carried the topic well into the twentieth century.
In the subject of complex functions, the nineteenth century ended with
a return to fundamentals. The prools ofthe Cauchy integral theorem in the
nineteenth century used the fact that dfldz is continuous. Edouard Goursat
(1858-1936) provedsl Cauchy's theorem, I"f Q) a": 0 around a closed
48. Abh. Kdilig. Akad. der I/iss., Berlin, 1876, I l-60 : Werke,2,77-124.
49. Afuersigt af Kongliga Velenskops-Akadeniens Fdrhandlingar, 3+, 1877, fr|, 17-43; see also
Acta Math., 4, 188+, l-79.
50. Ann. de l'Ecole Norn. Sup., (2),9, 1880, 145-66.
51. Amer. Math. Soc., Trans., 1,1900, l,f-16.
BTBLTocRAPHY 66g
curve C, without assuming the continuity of the derivative ;f'(z) in the

closed region bounded by the curve C. The existence off'(z) was sufficient.
Goursat pointed out that the continuity off(z) and existence ofthe deriva-
tive are sufficient to characterize analyticity.
As our sketch of the rise of the theory of complex functions has shown,
Cauchy, Riemann, and Weierstrass are the three major founders of the
theory of functions. For a long time their respective ideas and methods were
pursued independently by their followers. Then Cauchy's and Riemann's
ideas were fused and Weierstrass's ideas were gradually deduced from the
Cauchy-Riemann view, so that the idea of starting from the power series is
no longer emphasized. Moreover, the rigor ol the Cauchy-Riemann view
was improved, so that from this standpoint also Weierstrass's approach is
not essential. Full unification took place only at the beginning of the
twentieth century.
Bibliograplry
Abel, N. H.: vols., 1881, Johnson Reprint Corp., 1964.
(Euares complites,2
Mimorial publii d l'occasion du centinaire dt sa naissance, Jacob Dybwad,
Kristiania, 1902.
Brill, A., and M. Noether: " Die Entwicklung der Theorie der algebraischen
Functionen in ?ilterer und neuerer Zeit," Jahtes. der Deut. Math.-Verein., 3,
1892i3, 109-556, 155 86 in particular.
Brun, Viggo: "Niels Henrik Abel. Neue biographische Funde," Jour. fiit Math.,193,
1954,239-49.
Cauchy, A. L,; (Ewres complites,26 vols., Gauthier-Villars, 1882-1938, relevant
papers.
Crowe, Michael l.: A History of Vector Analgsis, University of Notre Dame Press,
1967, Chap. 1.
Enneper, A.: Elliptische Funkliontn: Theorie und Geschichte,2nd ed., L' Nebert, 1890.
Hadamard, Jacques: Nolice sur les lraaaux scienlifques de M- Jacques Hadamatd,
Gauthier-Villars, 1901.
Jacobi, C. G. J.: Gesammelte Werke, T vols' and Supplement, G. Reimer, 1881-91;
Chelsea reprint, 1968.
Jorrrdair.r, Philip E. B. : " The Theory of Functions with Cauchy and Gauss,"
Bibliotecha Mathematica, (3), 6, 1905, 190-207 .
Klein, Felix: Vorlesungen tiber die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert,
2 vols., Chelsea (reprint), 1950.
L€vy, Paul, et al. : " La Vie e t l'ceuvre de J. Hadamard," L'Enseignement Mathi-
matique, (2), 13, 1967, l-72.
Markuschewitsch, A. I.: Skizzen zur Geschichte der analgtischen Funktionen, Y EB
Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1955.
Mittag-Leffier, G. : " An Introduction to the Theory of Elliptic Functions,"
Annak of Math., 24, 192213' 271-351.
67o ruNcrroNs oF A coMpLEx VARIABLE
................._:"Die ersten .10 Jahre des Lebens von Weierstrass," Acta Math.,39, 1923,
l-57.
Ore, O. : Nicls Hcnrik Abcl, Matlumatieian Exlratrdinary, University of Minnesota
Press, 1957.
Osgood, W. F. : " Allgemeine Theorie der analytischen Funktionen," Encgk. dtr
Math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner, 1901-21, II Bl, l-114.
Reichardt, flarx, ed.: Gauss: Lcben und Werk, Haude und Spenersche Verlags-
buchhandlung, 1960; B. G. Teubner, 1957, l5l-82.
Riemann, Bernhard: Gcsammclte mathematisclu l,l/erke, 2nd, ed., Dover (reprint),
1953.
Schlesinger, L.: "Uber
Gauss' Arbeiten zu Funktionenlehre," Nathrichten Kdnig.
Gdtt., 1912, Beiheft, l-143; also in Gauss's Wcrke, 102,77 tr.
Ges. dcr Wiss. zu
Smith, David Eugene : A Sourcc Book in Matlumatics,2 vols., Dover (reprint), 1959,
pp. 55-66, ,10,1-10.
Staectel, PauI: " Integration durch imaginiires Gebiet," Bibliotccha Matlumalita,
(3), l, 190'0, 109-28.
Valson, C. A.: La Vic et hs traaauc du baron Cauchg,2 vols., Gauthier-Villars, 1868,
Weierstrass, Karl: Matlumatische Walur T vols., Mayer und Mi.iLller, 1895-1924.
28
Partial Differential Equations
in the Nineteenth Century
The profound study of nature is the most Grtile source of
mathematical discoveries. JosEPrr ForrEER
l. Introduction
The subject ofpartial differential equations, which had its beginnings in the
eighteenth century, burgeoned in the nineteenth. As physical science ex-
panded, in both the variety and depth of the phenomena investigated, the
number of new types of differential equations increased I and even the tyPes
already known, the wave equation and the potential equation, were
applied to new areas of physics. Partial differential equations became and
remain the heart of mathematics. Their importance for physical science is
only one of the reasons for assigning them this central place. From the
standpoint of mathematics itself, the solution of partial differential equations
created the need for mathematical developments in the theory of functions,
the calculus ofvariations, series expansions, ordinary differential equations,
algebra, and differential geometry. The subject has become so extensive
that in this chapter we can give only a few of the major results.
We are accustomed today to classifying partial differential equations
according to tyPes. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, so little
was known about the subject that the idea of distinguishing the various
types could not have occurred. The physical problems dictated which
equations were to be pursued and the mathematicians passed freely from
one type to another without recognizing some differences among them that
we now consider fundamental. The physical world was and still is indifferent
to the mathematicians' classification.
2. The Heat Equation and Fouri.er Series

The first big ninetee nth-century step, and indeed one of enormous im-
portance, was made by Joseph Fourier (176S-1830). Fourier did very well
67,
672 PARTIAL EquATroNs rBoo-r9oo
as a young student of mathematics but had set his heart on becoming an

army officer. Denied a commission because he was the son ol a tailor, he
turned to the priesthood. When he was offered a professorship at the
military school he had attended he accepted and mathematics became his
life interest.
Like other scientists of his time, Fourier took up the flow of heat. The
flow was of interest as a practical problem in the handling of metals in
industry and as a scientific problem in attempts to determine the tempera-
ture in the interior of the earth, the variation of that temperature with time,
and other such questions. He submitted a basic paper on heat conduction
to the Academy of Sciences of Paris in 1807.1 The paper was judged by
Lagrange, Laplace, and Legendre and was rejected. But the Academy did
wish to encourage Fourier to develop his ideas, and so made the problem of
the propagation of heat the subject ofa grand prize to be awarded in I812.
Fourier submitted a revised paper in 1811, which was judged by the men
already mentioned and others. It won the prize but was criticized for its
lack of rigor and so not published at that time in the Mimoires of the Acad-
emy. Fourier resented the treatment he received. He continued to work on
the subject of heat and, in 1822, published one of the classics of mathe-
matics, Thioric analytique de la chaleur.2 It incorporated the first part of his
l8ll paper practically without change. This book is the main source lor
Fourier's ideas. Two years later he became secretary of the Academy and
was able to have his l8ll paper published in its original form in the
Mhnoires.s
In the interior ofa body that is gaining or losing heat, the temperature
is generally distributed nonunilormly and changes at any one place with
time. Thus the temperature 7" is a function ol space and time. The precise
form of the function depends upon the shape of the body, the density, the
specific heat of the material, the initial distribution ol 7, that is, the distri-
bution at time I : 0, and the conditions maintained at the surface of the
body. The first major problem Fourier considered in his book was the
determination of the temperature 7 in a homogeneous and isotropic body
as a function of x,y, z, and ,. He proved on the basis of physical principles
that Tmust satisly the partial differential equation, called the heat equation
in three space dimensions,
(r) ta2T _ ar!

_ ,rQl ar!\
(Z;r*L aF+eZl:r"a, .
where i2 is a constant whose value depends on the material of the body.

l. The manuscript is in the library of the Ecole des Ponts ct Chausths,
2. (Euores, l.
3. Min. (2),4, 1819120, 185-555, pub. 1824, and 5, 1821122,
de I'Acad. des Sci., Paris,
153-246, pub. 1826; onty the second part is reproduced in Fourier's CEuores,2,3-94.
THE HEAT EQUATION AND FOURIER SERIES 6IZ
Fourier then solved specific heat conduction problems. We shall con-

sider a case that is typical of his method, the problem of solving equation
(l) for the cylindrical rod whose ends are kept at 0'temperature and whose
lateral surface is insulated so that no heat flows through it. Since this rod
involves only one space dimension, (1) becomes
(2) H:.T
subject to the boundary conditions
(3) 7(0,,) : 0, T(l,t) :0, for t > 0,
and the initial condition
(4) T(x,O):f(x) for0<r</.
To solve this problem Fourier used the method ofseparation ofvariables.
He let
(s) T(x, t) : 4@){(t).
On substitution in the differential equation, he obtained
!'\n
k'6@): {'a).tu)
He then argued (cf. [30] of Chap. 22) that each of these ratios must be a
constant, -) say, so that
(6) 6"@) + Ak2$(x) : o
and
(7) *',(t) + rl(,) : 0.
However the boundary conditions (3), in view of (5), imply that

(B) d(0) : 0 ""a {U) :0.
The general solution of (6) is
6@):bsin(y'-l*r+c)'
The condition that {(0) :0 implies that c:0' The condition /(l) :0
imposes a limitation on ,\, namely that 17 must be an integral multiple of
rlkl. Hence there are an infinite number of admissible values ,\, of tr or
(s) : (Yr,)', v intesral.

^"
These ,\, are what we now call the eigenvalues or characteristic values.
6l+ rARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EquATroNs r8oe-rgoo
Since the general solution of (7) is an exponential function but I is now
limited to the ,\r, then, in view of (5), Fourier had, so far, that
T'(x, t) : bnc-lztrztx2tz>t sintff'

where D, now denotes the constant in place of D and v:1,2,3,,.,,
llowever the equation (2) is linear, so that a sum of solutions is a solution.
Hence one can assert that
(10) T(x. t\ : J 5.., - <,r,2/tzt ' mx

zfisrn
4' 7'
To satis$ the initial condition (4), one must have for , : 0
(ll) f@):>b,sin'ff.
Fourier then faced the question, Can f (z) be represented as a trigonometric
In particular, can the D, be determined ?
'series ?
Fourier proceeded to answer these questions. Though by this time he
was somewhat conscious of the problem of rigor, he proceeded formally in
the eighteenth-century spirit. To follow Fourier's work we shall, for
simplicity, let I : r. Thus we consider
(12)
"t@:>b"sinvx, for0 < x < z.
v=1
Fourier takes each sine function and expands it by Maclaurin's theorem into
a polr'er series; that is, he uses
(13)
to replace sin ux in ( l2). Then, by interchanging the order of the summations,

an operation unquestioned at the time, he obtains
(14) /(,) :>&5(i,"-',)*'-'

Thus ;f(r) is expressed as a po\iver series in r, which implies a strong re-
striction on the admissible /(r) that was not presupposed for the /(*)
Fourier treats. This power series must be the Maclaurin series for;f(x), so
that
(15) f(*) : )f,rr{o)**.
THE HEAT EquATIoN AND FouRIER sERIEs 675
By equating coefficients of like powers of* in (14) and (15), Fourier finds
thatjf(")(0) : 0 for even,t and beyond that
L
) vzn-Lbn: (_ l )z- y(2" - 1)(0), n:1,2,3,....
Now the derivatives of f (x) are known, because;f(r) is a given initial con-
dition. Hence the 6, are an infinite set of unknowns in an infinite system of
linear algebraic equations.
In a previous problem, wherein he faced this same kind of system,
Fourier took the first & terms and the right-hand constant of the first ft
equations, solved these, and by obtaining a general expression {ot b",r,
which denotes the approximate value of D, obtained from the first it equa-
tions, he boldly concluded that 6, : Iimr- - i,,s. However, this time he
had much difficulty in determining the 0,. He took several different;f(r)'s
and showed how to determine the D, by very complicated procedures that
involved divergent expressions. Using these special cases as a guide he
obtained an expression for D, involving infinite products and infinite sums.
Fourier realized that this expression was rather useless, and by further bold
and ingenious, though again often questionable, steps finally arrived at the
formula
(16) u" : ?,
!" *l sin vs ds.
The conclusion was to an extent not new. We have already related

(Chap. 20, sec. 5) how Clairaut and Euler had expanded some functions in
Fourier series and had obtained the formulas
(I 7) : !, cos nx dx, u" : !

,flr) sin nx dx, n > t.
"" I _,tO) l"
Moreover, Fourier's results as derived thus far were limited, because he

assumed his /(r) had a Maclaurin expansion, which means an infinite
number of derivatives. Finally, Fourier's method was certainly not rigorous
and was more complicated than Euler's. Whereas Fourier had to use an
infinite system of linear algebraic equations, Buler proceeded more simply
by using the properties of trigonometric functions.
But Fourier now made some remarkable observations. He noted that
each D, can be interpreted as the area under the curve of y : (2lt)f (x) '
sin vx for x between 0 and zr. Such an area makes sense even for very arbi-
trary functions. The functions need not be continuous or could be known
616 rARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EquATroNs r8oo-rgoo
only graphically. Hence Fourier concluded that euerg functionrf(.r) could be
represented as
(lB) f@):>D,sinv*, for0 < x < z.
This possibility had, of course, been rejected by the eighteenth-century

masters except for Daniel Bernoulli.
How much Fourier knew of the work of his predecessors is not clear.
In a paper of 1825 he says that Lacroix had informed him of Euler's work
but he does not say when this happened. In any case Fourier was not de-
terred by the opinions of his predecessors. He took a great variety of func-
tions;[(*), calculated the first few 6, for each function, and plotted the sum
ofthe first few terms ofthe sine series (18) for each one. From this graphical
evidence he concluded that the series always representsrf(x) over O < x < r,
whether or not the representation holds outside this interval. He points out
in his book (p. 198) that two functions may agree in a given interval but
not necessarily outside that interval. The failure to see this explains why
earlier mathematicians could not accept that an arbitrary function can be
expanded in a trigonometric series. What the series does give is the lunction
in the domain 0 to zr, in the present case, and periodic repetitions of it
outside.
Once Fourier obtained the above simple result for the 0,, he, like
Euler, realized that each D, can be obtained by multiplying the series (18)
by sin vr and integrating from 0 to z. He also points out that this procedure
is applicable to the representation
\i
(le) J@) -ao -,
-
(, l
,/.
ay cos vt(.
!=1
He considers next the representation of any f(x) in the interval (-n,r).

The series (lB) represents an odd function l"f@) : -.f (- *)) and the series
(19) an even function l"f(r) : "f(-x)1. But any function can be repre-
sented as the sum ofan odd function;fo(x) and an even function;f (x) where
-r"(*):|ttal - tt_ ot, t":f,val +-r(-*)1.

Then any f(x) can be represented in the interval (-n, r) by
(20)
and the coefficients can be determined by multiplying through by cos zr or

sin y,r and integrating from - z to z, which yields ( I 7).
THE HEAT EqUATION AND FOURIER SERIES 6ll
_'l)
Figure 28. I
Fourier ne"er gave any complete proof that an " arbitrary" function
can be represented by a series such as (20). In the book he gives some loose
arguments, and in his final discussion of this point (paragraphs 415, 416,
and,423) he gives a sketch ofa proof. But even there Fourier does not state
the conditions that a function must satisfy to be expansible in a trigono-
metric series. Nevertheless Fourier's conviction that this was possible is
expressed throughout the book. He also saysa that his series are convergent
no matter what /(*) may be, whether' or not one can assign an analytic
expression to f (x) and, whether or not the function follows any regular law.
Fourier's conviction that any function can be expanded in a Fourier series
rested on the geometrical evidence described above. About this he says in
his book (p. 206), " Nothing has appeared to us more suitable than geo-
metrical constructions to demonstrate the truth of the new results and to
render intelligible the forms which analysis employs for their expressions."
Fourier's work incorporated several major advances. Beyond furthering
the theory of partial differential equations, he forced a revision in the
notion of function. Suppose the function ! : x is represented by a Fourier
series (20) in the interval (-n, n). The series repeats its behavior in each
interval of length 22. F{ence the function given by the series looks as shown
in Figure 28.1. Such functions cannot be represented by a single (finite)
analytic expression, whereas Fourier's predecessors had insisted that a
function must be representable by a single expression. Since the entire
function ! : x for all x is not represented by the series, they could not see
how an arbitrary function, which is not periodic, could be represented by
the series, though Euler and Lagrange had actually done so for particular
nonperiodic functions. Fourier is explicit that his series can represent func-
tions that also have different analytical expressions in different parts of the
interval (0, z) or (- r, n), whether or not the expressions join one another
continuously. He points out, finally, that his work settles the arguments on
solutions of the vibrating-string problem in favor of Daniel Bernoulli.
F-ourier's work marked the break lrom analytic lunctions or functions de-
velopable in Taylor's series. It is also significant that a Fourier series
4. Page 196 : CEuures, 1,210.

678 rARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EquATroNs r8oo-r goo
represents a function over an entire interval, whereas a Taylor series

represents a function only in a neighborhood ofa point at which a function
is analytic, though in special cases the radius of convergence may be
infinite.
We have already noted that Fourier's paper of 1807, in which he had
maintained that an arbitrary function can be expanded in a trigonometric
series, was not well received by the Academy of Sciences of Paris. Lagrange
in particular denied firmly the possibility of such expansions. Though he
criticized only the lack of rigor in the paper, he was certainly disturbed by
the generality of the functions that Fourier entertained, because Lagrange
still believed that a function was determined by its values in an arbitrarily
small interval, which is true ofanalytic functions. In fact Lagrange returned
to the vibrating-string problem and, with no better insight than he had
shown in earlier work, insisted on defending Euler's contention that an
arbitrary function cannot be represented by a trigonometric series. Poisson
did assert later that Lagrange had shown that an arbitrary function can be
represented by a Fourier series but Poisson, who was envious of Fourier,
said this to rob Fourier ofthe credit and give it to Lagrange.
Fourier's work made explicit another fact that was also implicit in the
eighteenth-century work of Euler and Laplace. These men had expanded
functions in series of Bessel functions and Legendre polynomials in order to
solve specific problems. The general fact that a function might be expanded
in a series of functions such as the trigonometric functions, Bessel functions,
and Legendre polynomials was thrust into the light by Fourier's work. He
showed, further, how the initial condition imposed on the solution of a
partial differential equation could be met, and so advanced the technique
of solving such equations. Fourier's paper of l8ll, though not published
until l82tl--26, was accessible to other men in the meantime, and his ideas,
at first grudgingly accepted, finally won favor.
Fourier's method was taken up immediately by Simdon-Denis Poisson
(1781-1840), one of the greatest of nineteenth-century analysts and a
first-class mathematical physicist. Though his father had wanted him to
study medicine, he became a student and then professor at the fountainhead
of nineteenth-century French mathematics, the Ecole Polytechnique. He
worked in the theory of heat, was one of the founders of the mathematical
theory of elasticity, and was one of the first to suggest that the theory ofthe
gravitational potential be carried over to static electricity and magnetism.
Poisson was so much impressed with Fourier's evidence that arbitrary
functions can be expanded in a series offunctions that he believed all partial
differential equations could be solved by series expansions I each term of the
series would itself be a product of functions (cf. [0]), one for each inde-
pendent variable. These expansions, he thought, embraced the most general
solutions. He also believed that if an expansion diverged, this meant that
cLosED soLUTIoNs; THE FouRrER INTEcRAL 67S
one should seek an expansion in terms of other functions. Of course Poisson

was far too optimistic.
From about I B l5 on he himself solved a number of heat conduction
problems and used expansions in trigonometric functions, Legendre poly-
nomials, and Laplace surface harmonics. We shall encounter some of this
work later. Much of Poisson's work on heat conduction was presented in his
Thiorie mathlmatique de la chaleur (1835).
3. Closed Solutions; the Fourier Integral

Despite the success and impact of Fourier's series solutions of partial dif-
ferential equations, one of the major efforts during the nineteenth century
was to find solutions in closed form, that is, in terms of elementary functions
and integrals ofsuch functions. Such solutions, at least ofthe kind known in
the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, were more manageable, more
perspicuous, and more readily used for calculation.
The most significant method of solving partial differential equations in
closed form, which arose from work initiated by Laplace, was the Fourier
integral. The idea is due to Fourier, Cauchy, and Poisson. It is impossible
to assign priority lor this important discovery, because all three presented
papers orally to the Academy of Sciences that were not published until
some time afterward. But each heard the others' papers, and one cannot
tell from the publications what each may have taken from the verbal
accounts.
In the last section of his prize paper of lBl l, Fourier treated the propa-
gation ofheat in domains that extend to infinity in one direction. To obtain
an answer for such problems, he starts with the general form of the solution
of the heat equation for a bounded domain, namely (cf. [0]),
(2r)
where the qo are determined by the boundary conditions and the anare de-
termined by the initial conditions, Fourier now regards the q, as abscissas of
a curve and the an as the ordinates ofthat curve. Then a, : Q(il where Q
is some function of q. He then replaces (21 ) by
(22) , : !: Q(q1r-*0"' cos qx dq,
and seeks to determine Q. He goes back to the formula for the coefficients
:: g@) cos nx dx,

'" I:
6Bo EeuATroNs rSoo-rgoo
where {(r) would usually be the initial functron. By a " limiting process "
that replaces a,, by Q and n by 4, he obtains
(23) q :11 F (x) cos qx dx,

7f Jo
where F(*), an even function, is the given initial temperature in the infinite
domain. Then by using (23) in (22) and by an interchange of the order of
integration, which Fourier does not bother to question, he has
U:-
2f-| F(") *[:, -kq2t cos qx cos qa dq.
rJo
Fourier then does the analogous thing for an odd F(.r), and so finally
obtains
(24)
"::l:" F(") d' I"* ' -kc2' cos q(x
- a) dq.
Thus the solution is expressed in closed form. Now lor I : 0, z is F(x),

which could be any given function. Hence Fourier asserts that, for an
arbitrary F (x),
I fo f 6
(2s) F(*):;J-*F(")d")" cos q(x - a) dq,
and this is one form of the Fourier double-integral representation of an

arbitrary function. In his book Fourier showed how to solve many types of
differential equations with this integral. Onc use lies in the fact that if (24)
is obtained by any process, then (25) shows that z satisfies the initial con-
dition at t:0, Another use is more evident il one writes the liourier
integral in exponential form, using the Euler relation, d'' : cos x + i sin r.
Then (25) becomes
F (*) : *,1:-'*- aq I-*- F (a) e- ia" du.
This form shows that F (x) can be resolved into an infinite number ol
harmonic components with continuously varying frequency ql2zr and with
amplitude (l t2n) J': - F (a)e - too da, whereas the ordinary Fouricr serics
resolves a given function into an infinite but discrete set ol harmonic
components.
Cauchy's derivation of the Fourier integral is somewhat similar. The
paper in which it appeared, " Th6orie de la propagation des ondcs,"
receivcd the prizc of thc Paris Academy for lBl6.5 This paper is the first
large investigation of waves on the surface o[ a fluid, a subject initiated by
5. Mim. diaers satans, l, 1827,3-312: (Euues, (l), l, 5-318; sec also Cauchy, Noriu.
Bull. de la Soc. : (Euures, (2), 2,223-27.
Phil., 1817, l2l-2+
THE POTENTIAL EQUATION AND GREEN'S THEOREM 68r
Laplace in 1778. Though Cauchy sets up the general hydrodynamical

equations he limits himself almost at once to special cases. In particular he
considers the equation
o'q o'q :0
orc' o!l'
in which q is what was later called a velocity potential and x and y are
spatial coordinates. He writes down without explanation the solution
(cf.l22l)
(26) , : I: cos mx e-u^f(m) dm,
wherein;f(z) is arbitrary thus far. Since y : 0 on the surface, 4 reduces to

a given F(*),
F(*):
(27)
I; cos mx J(m) dm.
Then Cauchy shows that
(28) -f (*)
::I: cos mu F (u) dtt.
With this value of;[(z)
(2e) F(x): :rE cos m, cos mu F(u) du dm.
Cauchy thus obtains not only the Fourier double-integral rePresentation of

F(x), but he also has the Fourier transform from J(n) to F(r) and the in-
verse transform. Given F (x), f (n) is determined by (28) and can be used
in (26).
Shortly after Cauchy turned in his prize paper, Poisson, who could not
compete for the prize because he was a member of the Academy, published
a major work on water waves, " M6moire sur Ia thdorie des ondes." 6 In
this work he derives the Fourier integral in about the same manner as
Cauchy.
4. The Potential Equation and Green's Theorem

The next significant development centered about the Potential equation,
though the principal result, Green's theorem, has application to many other
types of differential equations. The potential equation had figured in the
eighteenth-century work on gravitation and had also appeared in the
nineteenth-century work on heat conduction, for when the temperature
6. Mtm. de I'Acarl. des Sci., Paris, (2), l, 1816' 7l-186.
68e nARTHL DIFFERENTTAL EeuATIoNs rSoo-r9oo
distribution in a body, though varying from point to point, remains the

same as time varies, or is in the steady state, then 7in (l) is independent of
time and the heat equation reduces to the Potential equation. The emphasis
on the potential equation for the calculation ofgravitational attraction con-
tinued in the early nineteenth century but was accentuated by a new class
of applications to electrostatics and magnetostatics. Here too the attraction
of ellipsoids was a key problem.
One correction in the theory of gravitational attraction as expressed
by the potential equation was made by Poisson.T Laplace (Chap. 22, sec. 4)
had assumed that the potential equation
AzV A2V
(30) d7*w+i:o:o,
AzV
wherein Zis a function of x, y, an.d z, holds at any point (r,5, ,) whether

inside or outside of the body that exerts the gravitational attraction'
Poisson showed that if (x,y, z) lies inside the attracting body, then Z
satisfies
a2v a,V azv
(31)
W + AF * 7 z: -+tP,
whcre p is the density of the attracting body and is also a function of x, y,
and z. Though (31) is still called Poisson's equation, his proof that it holds
was not rigorous, as he himself recognized, even by the standards of that
time.
In this same paper Poisson called attention to the utility of this function
Z in electrical investigations, remarking that its value over the surface of
any conductor must be constant when electrical charge is allowed to dis-
tribute itself over the surface. In other papers he solved a number of prob-
lems calling for the distribution of charge on the surfaces o[ conducting
bodies when the bodies are near each other. His basic principle was that the
resultant electrostatic force in the interior of any one of the conductors
must be zero,
Despite the work of Laplace, Poisson, Gauss, and others, almost
nothing was known in the lB20s about the general properties ofsolutions of
the potential equation. It was believed that the general integral must
contain two arbitrary functions, of which one gives the value ofthe solution
on the boundary and the other, the derivative of the solution on the
boundary. Yet it was known in the case of steady-state heat conduction, in
which the temperature satisfies the potential equation, that the temperature
or heat distribution throughout the three-dimensional body is determined
when the temperature alone is specified on the surface. Hence one of the
7. Nouu, Bull. th la Soc. Philo.,3, 1813, 388-92.

THE PoTENTIAL EQUATION AND GREEN,S THEOREM 683
arbitrary functions in the supposed general solution of the potential equation

must somehow be fixed by some other condition.
At this point George Green (1793-lB4l), a self-taught English mathe-
matician, undertook to treat static electricity and magnetism in a thoroughly
mathematical fashion. In l82B Green published a privately printed booklet,
An Essay on Application of Mathcmatical Analysis to the Theories of Elearicity
the
and Magnetism. This was neglected until Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin,
l824-1907) discovered it, recognized its great value, and had it published
in the Journal Ji)r Mathemalik.s Green, who learned much from Poisson's
papers, also carried over the notion of the potential function to electricity
and magnetism.
He started with (30) and proved the following theorems. Let U and V
be any two continuous functions of x, y, and z whose derivatives are not
infinite at any point of an arbitrary body. The major theorem asserts that
(we shall used AZfor the Ieft hand side of [30], though it was not used by
Green)
(s2) [ll, L,vda t IIu{r,*

: III v L,u du +
JI var, a",
where a is the surface normal ofthe body directed inward and do is a surface
element. Theorem (32), incidentally, was also proved by Michel Ostro-
gradsky ( 180l-61), a Russian mathematician, who presented it to the St.
Petersburg Academy of Sciences in lB2B.8
Green then showed that the requirement that Z and each of its first
derivatives be continuous in the interior ofthe body can be imposed instead
ofa boundary condition on the derivatives of Z. In light of this fact, Green
represented V in the interior of the body in terms of its value Z on the
boundary (which function would be given) and in terms ofanother function
U which has the properties: (a) U must be 0 on the surface; (b) at a fixed
but undetermined point P in the interior, U becomes infinite as I /r where r
is the distance of any other point from P; (c) U must satisfy the potential
equation (30) in the interior. If U is known, and it might be found more
readily because it satisfies simpler conditions than V, then V can be
represented at every interior point by
4rv : -fJJI vP a,.

an
8. Jour. ftu Math.,39, 1850, 73-89; ++, rc52,356-74; and 47,1854, 16l-221 = Grccn's
Matfumaticol Palers, 187 l, 3-l 15.
9. Mim. Acatl. Sci. St. Petas., (6), l, 1831, 39-53.
68+ eARTTAL DTFTERENTTAL EeuATroNs r8oo-rgoo
where the integral extends over the surface, and 0Ul7n is the derivative of
U in the direction perpendicular to the surface and into the body. It is
understood that the coordinates of P are contained in 0Ul0n and are the
arguments at P. This function U, introduced by Green, which Riemann
later called the Green's function, became a fundamental concept of partial
differential equations. Green himsellused the term " potential function " for
this special function U as well as for V. His method of obtaining solutions of
the potential equation, as opposed to the method of using series of special
functions, is called the method of singularities. There is unfortunately no
general expression for the function [,/, nor is there a general method for
finding it. Green was content in this matter to give the physical meaning of
U for the case of the potential created by electric charges.
Green applied his theorem and concepts to electrical and magnetic
problems. He also took up in 183310 the problem of the gravitational
potential o[ ellipsoids of variable densities. In this work Green showed that
when Z is given on the boundary of a body, there is just one function that
satisfies LV :0 throughout the body, has no singularities, and has the
given boundary values. To make his proof, Green assumed the existence of
a function that minimizes
(33)
ilI l(X)'.(e#)'.(Y.)'l*
This is the first use of the Dirichlet principle (cf. Chap. 27, sec. 8).
In this lB35 paper Green did much of the work in z dimensions instead
of three and also gave important results on what are now called ultra-
spherical functions, which are a generalization to n variables of Laplace's
spherical surface harmonics. Because Green's work did not become well
known for some time, other men did some of this work independently.
Green is the first great English mathematician to take up the threads of
the work done on the Continent after the introduction of analysis to
England. His work inspired the great Cambridge school of mathematical
physicists which included Sir William Thomson, Sir Gabriel Stokes, Lord
Rayleigh, and Clerk Maxwell.
Green's achievements were lollowed by Gauss's masterful work of
1839,11 "Allgemeine Lehrsiitze in Beziehung auf die im verkehrten Ver-
hiiltnisse des Quadrats der Entfernung wirkenden Anziehungs-und Ab-
stossungs-krafte " (General Theorems on Attractive and Repulsive Forces
Which Act According to the Inverse Square of the Distance). Gauss proved
rigorously Poisson's result, namely, that LV - -4np at a point inside the
acting mass, under the condition that p is continuous at that point and in a
10. Trans. Canb. Phil. Soc., 53, 1835, 395-430 : Mathematiral Papeu, 187-222.
ll. Resultate aus det Beobachtungen des magwlischen Vereins, Yol. 4, 1840 : Werke, 5, 197-242.
THE POTENTIAL EQUATION AND GREEN'S THEOREM 6Bs
small domain around it. This condition is not fulfilled on the surf;ace of the
acting mass. On the surface the quantities A2Vl0x2, A2Vl0g2, and 02Vl0z2
have jumps.
The work thus far on the potential equation and on Poisson's equation
assumed the existence of a solution. Green's prool of the existence of a
Green's function rested entirely on a physical argument. From the existence
standpoint the fundamental problem of potential theory was to show the
existence of a potential function Z, which William Thomson about lB50
called a harmonic function, whose values are given on the boundary of a
region and which satisfies LV : O in the region. One might establish this
directly, or establish the existence of a Green's function U and from that
obtain tr/. The problem of establishing the existence of the Green's function
or ol Zitsellis known as the Dirichlet problem or the first boundary-value
problem ol potential theory, the most basic and oldest existence problem
of the subject. The problem of finding a tr/ satisfying LV : 0 in a region
when the normal derivative of Z is specified on the boundary is called the
Neumann problem, alter Carl G. Neumann (1832-1925), a professor at
Leipzig. This problem is called the second fundamental problem ofpotential
theory.
One approach to the problem of establishing the existence of a solution
of L,V:0, which Green had already used (see [33]), was brought into
prominence by William Thomson. ln 1847 12 Thomson announced the
theorem or principle which in England is named after him and on the
Continent is called the Dirichlet principle because Riemann so named it.
Though Thomson stated it in a somewhat more general form, the essence of
the principle may be put thus: Consider the class ofall functions U that have
continuous derivatives of the second order in the interior and exterior
domains T and T'respectively separated by a surface S. The U's are to be
continuous everywhere and assume on S the values ofa continuous function
f The lunction V that minimizes the Dirichlet integral
(3+)
IilKXr.(H)',.(#)1^
is the one that satisfies L,V : 0 and takes on the value;fon the boundary,S.
The connection between (34) and Atrl is that the first variation of lin the
sense of the calculus of variations is AZ, and this must be 0 for a minimizing
Z. Since for real U,l cannot be negative, it seemed clear that a minimizing
function Z must exist, and it is then not diflicult to prove it is unique. The
Dirichlet principle is then oza approach to the Dirichlet problem ofpotential
theory.
12. Jour. de Math.,12, 1847, 493-96 : Cambridge and Dublin Moth. Jour.,3, 1848, 8,f-87 :
Math, and Plqsical Papers, 1,93-96.
686 nARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EquATroNs rSoG-Igoo
Riemann's work on complex functions Bave a new importance to the

Dirichlet problem and the principle itself. Riemann's " proof" of the
existence of Z in his doctoral thesis used the two-dimensional case of
the Dirichlet principle, but it was not rigorous, as he himself realized'
When Weierstrass in his paper of 187013 presented a critique of the
Dirichlet principle, he showed that the a piori existence of a minimizing U
was not supported by proper arguments. It was correct that for all con-
tinuous differentiable functions U that go continuously from the interior
onto the prescribed boundary values the integral has a lower bound. But
whether there is a function Uo in the class of continuous, differentiable
functions that furnishes the lower bound was not established.
Another technique for the solution of the potential equation employs
complex function theory. Though d'Alembert in his work of 1752 (Chap.
27 , sec. 2) and Euler in special problems had used this technique to solve the
potential equation, it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century
that complex function theory was vitally employed in potential theory. The
relevance of function theory to potential theory rests on the fact that if
z * iu is an analytic function of z, then both z and a satisfy Laplace's
equation. Moreover, if z satisfres Laplace's equation, then the conjugate
function u such that z * ia is analytic necessarily exists (Chap. 27, sec. B).
Where the equation Az : 0 is used in fluid flow, the function u(x, y) is
what Helmholtz called the velocity potential, and then 0ul0x aod 0ul0y
represent the components of the velocity of the fluid at any Point @, y). In
the case of static electricity, z is the electrostatic potential and 0ul0x and
0ul0g are the components of electric force. In both cases the curves z :
const. are equipotential lines and the curves I/ : const.' which are or-
thogonal to u : const., are the flow or stream lines (lines of force for
electricity). The function a(x,g) is called the stream function. The introduc-
tion of this function is clearly helpful because of its physical significance.
One advantage of the use of complex function theory in solving the
potential equation derives from the fact that if F(z): F(x + iy) is an
analytic function, so that its real and imaginary parts satisfy A/ : 0, then
the transformation of x and y to f and 7 by
t : -f (x,y), 1 : eQc's)
where
{:t+i,1
produces another analytic function G(() : C(E * i1), and its real and
imaginary parts also satisfy AZ(f, ?) : 0. Now if the original Potential
13. Chap.27,zec.9.
cuRvrLrNEAR cooRDrNATEs 687
problem LV : 0 has to be solved in some domain D, then by proper choice

of the transformation the domain D' in which the transformed AZ : 0 has
to be solved can be much simpler. Here the use of conformal transforma-
tions, such as the Schwarz-Christoffel transformation, is of great service,
We shall not pursue the uses of complex function theory in potential
theory because the details of its use go far beyond any basic methodology in
the solution of partial differential equations. It is, however, again worth
noting that many mathematicians resisted the use of complex functions
because they were still not reconciled to complex numbers. At Cambridge
University, even in 1850, cumbrous devices were used to avoid involving
complex functions. Horace Lamb's Treatisc on the Mathematical Theory of the
Motion oJ Fluids, published in 1879 and still a classic (now known as Hydro-
dynarnics), was the first book to acknowledge the acceptance of function
theory at Cambridge .
5. Curoilinear Coordinates
Green introduced a number of major ideas whose significance extended far
beyond the potential equation. Gabriel LamC (1795-1870), a mathema-
tician and engineer concerned primarily with the heat equation, introduced
another major technique, the use of curvilinear coordinate systems, which
could also be used for many types of equations. Lamd pointed out in lB331a
that the heat equation had been solved only for conducting bodies whose
surfaces are normal to the coordinate planes r: const., y: const., and
z : const. Lam€'s idea was to introduce new systems of coordinates and the
corresponding coordinate surflaces. To a very limited extent this had been
done by Euler and Laplace, both of whom used spherical coordinates p, 0,
and /, in which case the coordinate surfaces p : const,, 0 : const., and
d : co.rst. are spheres, planes, and cones respectively. Knowing the equa-
tions that transform from rectangular to spherical coordinates, one can, as
Euler and Laplace did, transform the potential equation from rectangular
to spherical coordinates.
The value of the new coordinate systems and surfaces is twofold. First,
a partial differential equation in rectangular coordinates might not be
separable into ordinary differential equations in this system but might be
separable in some other system. Secondly, the physical problem might call
for a boundary condition on, say, an ellipsoid. Such a boundary is repre-
sented simply in a coordinate system wherein one family of surfaces consists
of ellipsoids, whereas in the rectangular system a relatively complicated
equation must be used. Moreover, after separation of variables in the proper
coordinate system is employed, this boundary condition becomes applicable
to just one of the resulting ordinary differential equations.
14. Jour. dr l:Ecoh Poly., 14, 1833, 19,*-251,
688 rARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EquATroNs r8oo-I9oo
Lam6 introduced several new coordinate systems for the express pur-
pose of solving the heat equation in these systems.rs His chief system was the
three f,amilies of surfaces given by the equations
x2 u2 22
p+f,_6r+Xr=T-l:o
*1
* =!',=+ =t' .-l:o
*1
* + ^"
^Y',= ' ,2 _c2^
y2'v2_b2 - l:0.
where tr2 > e' > p' > b2 > v2. These three families are ellipsoids, hy-
perboloids ofone sheet, and hyperboloids of two sheets, all of which possess
the same foci. Any surface of one family cuts all the surfaces of the other two
orthogonally, and in fact cuts them in lines of curvature (Chap. 23, sec. 7).
Any point in space accordingly has coordinates (tr, g., r), namely the tr, p,
and v of the surfaces, one from each family, which go through that point.
This new coordinate system is called ellipsoidal, though Lamd called it
elliptical, a term now used for another system.
Lam6 transformed the heat equation for the steady-state case (tem-
perature independent of time), that is, the potential equation, to these
coordinates, and showed that he could use separation of variables to reduce
the partial differential equation to three ordinary differential equations. Of
course these equations must be solved subject to appropriate boundary
conditions. In a paper of 183916 Lam6 studied further the steady-state
temperature distribution in a three-axis ellipsoid and gave a complete solu-
tion of the problem treated in his lB33 paper. In this lB39 paper he also
introduced another curvilinear coordinate system, nor r' called the sphero-
conal system, wherein the coordinate surfaces are a family of spheres and
two families of cones. This system too Lam6 used to solve heat conduction
problems. Lamd wrote many other papers on heat conduction using ellip-
soidal coordinates, including a second one ofl lB39 in the same volume ofthe
Journal de Mathimatiques, in which he treats special cases of the ellipsoid.lT
The subject of mutually orthogonal families of surfaces had such
obvious importance in the solution of partial differential equations that it
became a subject of investigation in and for itself. In a paper of 183418
Lam6 considered the general properties of any three families ol mutually
orthogonal surfaces and gave a procedure for expressing a partial differen-
15. Anaales tle Chimie et Physi.que, (2), 53, 1833, 190-204.

16, Jour, de Math.,4, 1839, t26-63.
17. Jour. de Math.,4, 1839, 351-85.
18. Jour de l'Ecole Poly., 14, 1834, l9l-288.
cuRvrLrNEAR cooRDINATEs 689
tial equation in any orthogonal coordinate system, a technique used con-

tinually ever since.
(Heinrich) Eduard Heine (1821-Bl) followed in Lam6's tracks. Heine
in his doctoral dissertation of l9421e determined the potential (steady-state
temperature) not merely for the interior of an ellipsoid of revolution when
the value of the potential is given at the surface, but also lor the exterior of
such an ellipsoid and for the shell between confocal ellipsoids of revolution.
Lamd was so much impressed with what he and others accomplished
by the use of triply orthogonal coordinate systems that he thought aII
partial differential equations could be solved by finding a suitable system.
Later he realized that this was a mistake. In lB59 he published a book on
the whole subject, Legons sur les coordonnies curoilignes.
Though the use of mutually orthogonal families of surfaces as the co-
ordinate surfaces did not solve all partial differential equations, it did open
up a new technique that could be exploited to advantage in many prob-
lems. The use of curvilinear coordinates was carried over to other partial
differential equations. Thus Emile-L6onard Mathieu ( t 835-1900), in a
paper ol I 868,20 treated the vibrations of an elliptic membrane, which
involves the wave equation, and here inroduced elliptic cylinder coordi-
nates and functions appropriate to these coordinates, now called Mathieu
functions (Chap. 29, sec. 2). In the same year Heinrich Weber (1842-
l9l3), working with the equation 02ul0g2 + k2u : 0, solved it21
A2ul0x2 +
for a domain bounded by a complete ellipse and also for the region bounded
by two arcs ofconfocal ellipses and two arcs ofhyperbolas confocal with the
ellipses. The special case in which the ellipses and hyperbolas become
confocal parabolas was also considered, and here Weber introduced func-
tions appropriate to expansions in this coordinate system, now called Weber
functions or parabolic cylinder functions. In his Cozrs dt physique tnathima-
tique (1873), Mathieu took up new problems involving the ellipsoid and
introduced still other new functions.
Our discussion ol the idea initiated by Lam6, the use of curvilinear
coordinates, describes just the beginning of this work. Many other coordi-
nate systems have been introduced; corresponding special functions that
result from solving the ordinary differential equations, which arise from
separation of variables, have also been studied.22 Most of this theory of
special functions was created by physicists as they needed the functions and
their properties in concrete problems (see also Chap. 29).
19. Jour..far Math.,26, 1843, 185-216.

20. Jour. de Math., (2), 13, 1868, 137-203.
21. Math. Ann., 1,1869, l-36.
22. See William E. Byerly, An Elementary Treatise on Fourier Series, Dover (reprint), 1959,
and E, W. Hobson, Tie Theory oJ Spheriaal and Ellipsoidal Harmonics, Chelsea (reprint),
1955.
69o rARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EeuATroNs r8oo-Igoo
6. Tlu Waae Equation and the Reduced Waoe Equation

Perhaps the most important type of partial differential equation is the wave
equation. In three spatial dimensions the basic form is
02u 02u 02u
._ J .._ -L : ,.^ 02u
(36)
axz'agz'azl -
'atz-.
As we know, this equation had already been introduced in the eighteenth
century and had also been expressed in spherical coordinates, During the
nineteenth century new uses of the wave equation were found, especially in
the burgeoning field of elasticity. The vibrations of solid bodies ofa variety
of shapes with different initial and boundary conditions and the propaga-
tion of waves in elastic bodies produced a host of problems. Further work in
the propagation ofsound and light raised hundreds of additional problems.
Where separation of variables is possible, the technique of solving (37)
is no different from what Fourier did with the heat equation or Lamd did
after e:rpressing the potential equation in some system of curvilinear coor-
dinates. Mathieu's use of curvilinear coordinates to solve the wave equation
by separation of variables is typical of hundreds of papers.
Qgite another and important class of results dealing with the wave
equation was obtained by treating the equation as an entirety. The first of
such major results deals with initial-value problems and goes back to
Poisson, who worked on this equation during the years l80B to 1819. His
principal achievementas was a formula for the propagation of a wave
u(x,g, z,l) whose initial state is described by the initial conditions
(37) u(x,y, z,O) :
$g(*,y, z), u1(x,y, z,O) : $r(x,9, z)
and which satisfies the partial diflerential equation
(38)
02u 02u 02u I 02u
axz ' au2 ' azz 42 aP
-t-l-:--
wherein 4 is a constant. The solution z is given by
(39) u(x,y, z, t)
: *1" / cos 0,s t
[i" r,(x I / sin d,
atsin arsin
z + at cos $)at sin 6 d0 d6

. *"*,f f" iot, * at sin / cos 0, y + atsin / sin d,
z + at cos S)at sin O de d4
wherein 0 and. $ are the usual spherical coordinates. The domain ofintegra-
tion is the surface of a sphere So, with radius aI about the point P with
coordinates x, y, and, z,
23. Mhn. de l'Acad. dcs Sci., Paris, (2), 3, 1818, l2l-76.
THE llIA\rE AND REDUCED WAVE EqUATTONS 69r
Figure 28.2
To obtain some indication of what Poisson's result means, let us con-

sider a physical example. Suppose that the initial disturbance is set up by a
body V (Fig. 28.2) with boundary S so that $o and $, are defined on tr/ and
are 0 outside of Z. We say that the initial disturbance is localized in Z.
Physically a wave sets out lrorn V and spreads out into space. Poisson's
formula tells us what happens at any point P(x, y, z) outside of V. Let d and
D represent the minimum and maximum distances of P to the points of Z.
When t < dla, the integrals in (39) are 0 because the domain of integration
is the surface of the sphere So, with radius aJ and center at P. Since {s and
$, are 0 on So,, then the function u is 0 at P. This means that the wave
spreading out from S has not reached P. At t : dla, the sphere So, just
touches .S so the leading front of the wave emanating from S arrives at P.
Between t : dla and , : Dla the sphere Sol cuts Z and so u(P, t) + 0.
Finally for t > Dla, the sphere S"s will not cut S (the entire region Iz lies
inside ^S.,) ; that is, the initial disturbance has passed through P. Hence
again u(P, r) : 0. The instant , : D/a corresPonds to the passage of the
trailing edge of the wave through P. At any given time I the leading edge of
the wave takes the form ofa surface which seParates Points not reached by
the disturbance from those reached. This leading edge is the envelope ofthe
family of spheres with centers on S and with radii at. The terminating edge
of the wave at time I is a surface seParating points at which the disturbance
exists from those which the disturbance has passed. We see, then, that the
disturbance which is localized in space gives rise at each point P to an effect
that lasts only for a finite time. Moreover the wave (disturbance) has a
leading and a terminating edge. This entire phenomenon is called Huygens's
principle.
A quite different method of solving the initial-value problem for the
wave equation was created by Riemann in the course of his work on the
propagation of sound waves of finite amplitude.2a Riemann considers a
linear differential equation ofsecond order that can be put in the form
(40) L(u\ : =o'!

ax og + ox+ B*
D? o! + Fu :0,
24. Abh. der Ges. der Wiss. zu Gdtt.,8, 1858/59, 43-65 = Wcrlee' 156-78,
692 eARTTAL DTFFERENTIAL EquATIoNs rBoo-rgoo
Figure 28.3
where D, E, and F are continuous and differentiablc to second order func-

tions of x and u. The problem calls for finding z at an arbitrary point P
(Fig. 28.3) when one knows u and 0ul0n (which means knowjng Aul7x and
0ul0y) along a curve f. His method depends on finding a function z (called
a Riemann function or characteristic function)25 that satisfies what is norv
called the adjoint equation
(41) M(r) :a;a-T-i*

02o A@a) A@u)
tu:0
and other conditions we shall specify shortly.
Riemann introduced the segments PP1 and PP, of the characteristics
(he did not use the term) v: (and,y:4 through P. Now a generalized
Green's theorem (in two dimensions) is applied to the differential expression
Z(z). To express the theorem compactly, let us introduce
* :;(,fi - ",],) *
,*
,:l("*-.*) * u,,
Then Green's theorem states
(+2) luL(u) - uMQ.t)l dS : r (*

/ax
+{\as
l: J" aa/
: I" {Xcos (2, ,r) + f cos (n,y)\ ds,

where S is the area in the figure, C is the entire boundary ofS, and cos (n, t)
is the cosine of the angle between the normal to C and the x-axis.
25. o is not the same as a fundamental solution or a Green's function.

THE WAVE AND REDUCED WAVE EQUATIONS 6gg
Beyond satisfying (41), Riemann requires of a that

(a)r:l at P,
0u
(43) (b)
Ay - Da:O on *:t,
0a
(") -Ea:O on g:1.24
T*
By using the condition that M(a):0 and the conditions (43), and by
evaluation of the curvilinear integral over C, Riemann obtains
(44) u(t,d : rl (n,x) * Ycos (z,y)} ds +

){(uu)n, *
(uu),,\.
J.{xcos
Thus the vilue of z at any arbitrary point P is given in terms of the values
ol u, 1ul0n, a, and 1al0n on I and the values ofz and u at P, and, Pr.
Now z is given at P1 and Pr. The function u must itself be found by
solving M(a) : 0 and meeting the conditions in (a3). Hence what Rie-
mann's method achieves is to change the original initial-value problem for
z to another kind of initial-value problem, the one for u. The second prob-
lem is usually easier to solve. In Riemann's physical problem it was es-
pecially easy to find a. However the existence of such a z generally u,as not
established by Riemann.
The Riemann method as just described is useful only for the type of
equation exemplified by the wave equation (hyperbolic equations) in two
independent variables and cannot be extended directly. The extension of
the method to more than two independent variables meets with the diffi-
culty that the Riemann function becomes singular on the boundary of the
domain of integration and the integrals diverge. The method has been
extended at the cost of increased complication.
Progress in the solution of the wave equation by other methods is
intimately connected with what are called steady-state problems, which
lead to the reduced wave equation. The wave equation, by its very form,
involves the time variable. In many physical problems, where one is inter-
ested in simple harmonic waves, one assumes that z : w(x, y, z)ctH, and, by
substituting this into the wave equation one obtains
(4s) Lw + kzw:*ott' ** oy' ** oz' * kzw:0.

This is the reduced wave equation or the Helmholtz equation. The equation
Lw + kzw: 0 represents all harmonic, acoustic, elastic, and electro-
magnetic waves. While the older authors were satisfied to find particular in-
tegrals, Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-94), in his work on the oscillations
26. For two-dimensional problems u is a function of four variables, f, 1, x, and g. It satis-
fieslV(u) : 0 as a function of x and y.
6g+ PARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EQUATToNs r8oo-Igoo
of air in a tube (organ pipe) with an oPen end, gave the first general
investigation of its solutions.2? He was concerned with the acoustical prob-
lem in which ro is the velocity potential of a harmonically moving air mass,
rt is a constant determined by the elasticity of the air and the oscillation
frequency, and l, which equals 2n lk, is the wavelength' By applying Green's
theorem he showed that any solution of Ara * h2w : 0 that is continuous in
a given domain can be represented as the effect of single and double layers
of excitation points on the surface of the domain. Using e-rk'l4nr as one of
the functions in Green's theorem, he obtained
(46) w(P) : -*,tl'1@u,*. *,!l -*,(, )*

wherein r denotes the distance from P to a variable Point on the boundary.
Thus a at any point P within the domain in which the solution is sought is
given in terms of the values of za and 0wl0n on the boundary S.
The work of Helmholtz was used by Gustav R. Kirchhoff (1824-87),
one of the great German nineteenth-century mathematical physicists, to
obtain another solution of the initial-value problem for the wave equation.
Let us suppose that Aro * k2w : 0 comes from
Pu: "t'
wherein we have let u : wetot so that ,t: olc. Then (46) may be written as
(47) u(p, t) : -+,1 ! 'ry'i,* * !*l I " ln(""' ,"'"") as.
This formula was generalized by Kirchhoff. If we let {(t) be the value of a

at any point (x,y, z) of the boundary at the instant z and let;[(z) be the
28 that
corresponding value of 0ul0n, then Kirchhoff showed
(48) u(p, t) : -*l y!-ltil * . L*l l *,P=!U) *,

provided that in the last term the differentiation with resPect to a applies to
r only insofar as it appears explicitly in both numerator and denominator'
Thus z is obtained at P in terms of values of u arid 0ul0n at earlier times at
points of the closed surface surrounding P. This result is called Huygens's
principle of acoustics and it is a ger,eralization of Poisson's formula.
We have noted that Riemann used a somewhat generalized Green's
theorem. The fult generalization of Green's theorem that employs the
adjoint differential equation and which is also called Green's theorem,
comes from a paper by Paul Du Bois-Reymond (l83l-89)'s and from
27. Jour. fnr Math.,57,1860, l-72 : Wissenscholtliclu Abhandlungen, l' 303-82'

28. Sitzungsbcr. Akad. Wiss. zu Bcilin, 1882, 641-69 : Gcs- Abh,'2,22 tr,
29. Jour. fiir Math., lO4, 1889,241-301.
THE WAVE AND REDUCED WAVB EqUATIONS 69s
Darboux in his Thiorit genCrale des surJaces fo both cite Riemann's paper of
1858/59. If the given equation is
L(u\ : A*
ox' * rr 3*
ox oy
* c*oy'+ o*ox+ E*
oy
+ Fu : o,
wherein the coefficients are functions of x all.d y, one integrates the product
ll(u) over an arbitrary domain R of the xy-plane under the assumption that
u, a, and their first and second partial derivatives are continuous. Then
integration by parts yields the generalized Green's theorem, which states
that
II "*r, ttx ds : -JI ,tt dx dy -I ,o * - P dx),

where the double integrals are over the interior of .R and the single integrals
over the boundary ofR,
M(u\ :a'!A:) * rai@!

ox oy
*az!c:)
og' -4P9
ox -u(!o)
oy
* ru
, : u(,*, - ,*) * r(,3, - "4*) * (u - q* - ff) *

a : n(,X -,*) * u(,H - "?,\. (" - # - #)*
MQt) is the adjoint expression of Z(z) and M(a) :0 is the adjoint dif-
ferential equation. Conversely I(u) is the adjoint of M(a).
The significance of Green's theorem is that it can be used to obtain
solutions of some partial differential equations. Thus, since the elliptic
equation can always be put in the form
L(u) : 64
ox* b!.
* o*- og
+,u : o,
then
M(') : t' -a(:Y) :

ox - ryP + ca o'og
Let a be a solution of the adjoint equation that becomes logarithmically

infinite at an arbitrary point (f, z1); that is, it behaves like
a: Ulogr * V,
where r is the distance from (f, \) to (x,g); U and V arc continuous in the
domain .R being considered; and U is normalized so that U(t,d: l.
Now exclude (f, a) from the domain of integration by enclosing it in a
30. Vol. 2, Book IV, Chap. ,1,2nd cd., 1915.
6g6 IARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EeuATIONs lBoo-r9oo
circle. Then the generalized Green's theorem gives, when the circle is
contracted to (f, a) :
(49) 2ru({,1) : -[J,rp1a*ay

ff 0u 0t
* JLOn
I la:- - u';-
On
* (a cos (n, x) * 6 cos (o,y)).uolds
where z is positive if directed to the outside of the domain; the single integral
is taken counterclockwise over the boundary. Since z satisfi.es L(u) : 0, if
we know u and if u and 0ul0n are given (both are not arbitrary) on the
boundary, then we have u expressed as a single integral. The function a is
called a Green's function, though often the condition that a vanish on the
boundary of .R is added in the definition of the Green's function. Various
specializations and generalizations of this use of Green's theorem have been
developed.
7. Systems of Partial Diferential Equations

In the eighteenth century the differential equations of fluid motion pre-
sented the first important system of partial differential equations. In the
nineteenth century three more fundamental systems, the fluid dynamical
equations for viscous media, the equations of elastic media, and the equa-
tions of electromagnetic theory, were created.
The acquisition of the equations of fluid motion when viscosity is
present (as it always is) took a tortuous path. Euler had given the equations
of motion of a fluid that is nonviscous. Since the time ol Lagrange the
essential difference between the motion of a fluid when a velocity potential
exists and when it does not had been recognized. Led by a formal analogy
with the theory of elasticity and by the hypothesis olmolecules animated by
repulsive forces, Claude L. M. H. Navier (1785-1836), professor of me-
chanics at the Ecole Polytechnique and at the Ecole des Ponts et Chaussies,
obtained the basic equations in l82l.31 The Navier-Stokes equations, as
they are now identified, are
Du--AblA0
: rar :* +
p:Dt Px - + i t, rLu
Du-.AblA0
(50) e=pr: cY -fi+ 3r:a!+ u.La
Dw-AP ta0 *
P Dt:Pz,-Tz + i17 lt\w
-0u0u0u
0:'-*;-*;-,
ox o! oz
31. M,im de l' Acad. des Sci., Paris, (2) 1827 , 37 5-94.
'
SYSTEMS OF PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS 6g7
where A has the usual meaning; p is the density ofthe fluid;y', the pressure;
u, o, and u are the components of velocity of the fluid at any ,(, y, z, and
t; X, Y, and Z are the components of an external force; the constant p,
which depends on the nature of the fluid, is called the coefficient of vis-
cosity; and the derivative DlDt has the meaning explained in Chapter 22,
section 8. For an incompressible fluid, 0 : 0.
The equations were also obtained in lB29 by Poisson.s2 They were
then rederived in lB45 on the basis of the mechanics of continua by George
Gabriel Stokes ( I B 19-1903), professor ol mathematics at Cambridge Uni-
versity, in his essay "On the Theories of the Internal Friction of Fluids in
Motion."33 Stokes endeavored to account for the frictional action in all
known liquids, which causes the motion to subside by converting kinetic
energy into heat. Fluids, by virtue of their viscosity, stick to the surfaces of
solids and thus exert tangential forces on them.
The subject of elasticity was founded by Galileo, Hooke, and Mariotte
and was cultivated by the Bernoullis and Euler. But these men dealt with
specific problems. To solve them they concocted ad hoc hypotheses on how
beams, rods, and plates behaved under stresses, pressures, or loads. The
theory proper is the creation of the nineteenth century. From the beginning
of the nineteenth century on a number of great men worked persistently to
obtain the equations that govern the behavior of elastic media, which
includes the air. These men were primarily engineers and physicists. Cauchy
and Poisson are the great mathematicians among them, though Cauchy was
an engineer by training.
The problems of elasticity include the behavior of bodies under stress
wherein one considers what equilibrium position they will assume, the
vibrations of bodies when set in motion by an initial disturbance or by a
continuously applied force, and, in the case of air and solid bodies, the
propagation of waves through them. The interest in elasticity in the nine-
teenth century was heightened by the appearance about 1820 of a wave
theory of light, initiated by the physician Thomas Young (1773-1829) and
by Augustin-Jean Fresnel (l7BB-1827), an engineer. Light was regarded as
a wave motion in ether, and ether was believed to be an elastic medium.
Hence the propagation of light through ether became a basic problem.
Another stimulus to a strong interest in elasticity in the early nineteenth
century was Ernst F. F. Chladni's (1756-1827) experiments (1787) on the
vibrations of glass and metal, in which he showed the nodal lines. These
should be related to the sounds given off by, for example, a vibrating
drumhead.
The work to obtain basic equations of elasticity was long and full of
32. Jour. de l'Ecole Polg., 13,1831,l-74.

33. Trans. Camb. Phil..9oc., 8, 1849, 287-319 = Math. and Plqs, Papcrs, 1,7t129.
698 PARTTAL DTFFERENTIAL EqiJATroNs rEoG-Igoo
pitfalls because little was known of the internal or molecular structure of

matter; hence it was difficult to grasP any physical principles. The assump-
tions made as to solid bodies, the air, and ether varied from one writer to
another and were disputed. In the case of ether, which presumably pene-
trated solid bodies because light passed through some and was absorbed by
others, the relationship of the ether molecules to the molecules of the solid
body also posed great difficulties. We do not intend to follow the physical
theories of elastic bodies, nor is our understanding complete even today.
Naviers' was the first (l82l) to investigate the general equations of
equilibrium and vibrations of elastic solids. The material was assumed to be
isotropic, and the equations contained a single constant representing the
nature of the solid. By 1822, stimulated by Fresnel's work, Cauchy had
created another approach to the theory of elasticity.ss Cauchy's equations
contain t$/o constants to represent the material of the body, and for an
isotropic body are
()+,,)ff*nou:,?u
(51)
. .A0 02o
(i+p)5-n+rA.tt:PAp
(l. + p).A0 02w

7r* ltaw: P Att
0-0u0a0w
:'=- *:
ox oy* -'oz
Here z, a, and w are components of displacements, 0 is called the dilatation,
and l and p are constants ofthe body or medium. For general anisotropic
media the equations are quite complicated, and it may be pointless to write
them in all generality. The equations are given by Cauchy.36
The most spectacular triumph of the nineteenth century, with an
enormous impact on science and technology, was Maxwell's derivation in
1864 of the laws of electromagnetism.s? Maxwell, utilizing the electrical
and magnetic researches of numerous predecessors, notably Faraday, intro-
duced the notion of a displacement current-radio waves are one form of
displacement current-and with this notion formulated the laws of electro-
magnetic wave propagation. His equations, which are most conveniently
stated in the vector form adopted later by Oliver Heaviside, are four in
number and involve the electric field intensity E, the magnetic field
34. Mh. de I'Acad. dcs Sci., Paris, (2),7,1827,37194.

35, Exercicx de nath., 1828 : CEuarest Q), 8, 191226.
36, Exercices de math., 1828 = (Euarest (2) 8, 253-77,
'
37. Phil. Trans.,l55, 1865,459-512 = *intifc Palcrs, l' 526-97.
ExrsrENcE THEoREMS 6Sg
intensity H, the dielectric constant e of the medium, the magnetic perme-

ability p of the medium, and the charge density p. The equations are
(52) curlH::ry, curlE: +ry

(53) div oE : p and div prH : 0.38
The first two equations are the primary ones and amount to six scalar
(non-vectorial) partial differential equations. The displacement current is
the term AQE)lAt
By working with just these equations, Maxwell predicted that electro-
magnetic waves travel through space and at the speed of light. On the basis
of the identity of the two speeds, he dared to assert that light is an electro-
magnetic phenomenon, a prediction that has been amply confirmed since
his time.
No general methods for solving any of the above systems of equations
are known. However, the nineteenth-century men gradually realized that
in the case of partial differential equations, whether single equations or
systems, general solutions are not nearly so useful as the solutions for
specific problems where the initial and boundary conditions are given, and
where experimental work might also aid one in making useful simplifying
assumptions. The writings of Fourier, Cauchy, and Riemann furthered this
realization. The work on the solution of the many initial- and boundary-
value problems to which specializations of these systems gave rise is enor-
mous, and almost all of the mathematicians of the century undertook such
problems.
B. Existence Theorems
As the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century mathematicians created a vast
number of types of differential equations, they found that methods of
solving many of these equations were not available. Somewhat as in the
case of polynomial equations, where efforts to solve equations of degree
higher than four failed and Gauss turned to the proof of existence of a root
(Chap. 25, sec. 2), so in the work on differential equations the failure to find
explicit solutions, which of course ipso;facro demonstrate existence, caused
the mathematicians to turn to proof of the existence of solutions. Such
proofs, even though they do not exhibit a solution or exhibit it in a useful
form, serve several purposes. The differential equations were in nearly all
cases the mathematical formulation of physical problems. No guarantees
were available that the mathematical equations could be solved; hence a
38. For the meaning of curl and div see Chap. 32, scc. 5.
700 PARTIAL EquATroNs rBoo-r9oo
proof of the existence of a solution would at least insure that a search lor a
solution would not be attempting the impossible. The proof of existence
would also answer the question: What must we know about a given physical
situation, that is, what initial and boundary conditions insure a solution and
preferably a unique one? Other objectives, perhaps not envisaged at the
beginning of the work on existence theorems, were soon recognized. Does
the solution change continuously with the initial conditions, or does some
totally new phenomenon enter when the initial or boundary conditions are
varied slightly ? Thus a parabolic orbit that obtains for one value of the
initial velocity ofa planet may change to an elliptic orbit as a consequence
ofa slight change in the initial velocity. Such a difference in orbit is physi-
cally most significant, Further, some of the methodologies ol solution, such
as the use of the Dirichlet principle or Green's theorem, presupposed the
existence of a particular solution. The existence of these pariicular solutions
had not been established.
Before we give some brief indications of the work on existence theorems,
it may be helpful to note a classification ofpartial differential equations that
was actually made rather late in the century. Though some eflorts toward
classification by reducing thcse equations to normal or standard forms had
been made by Laplace and Poisson, the classification introduced by Du
Bois-Reymond has now become standard. In 1BB93e he classified the most
general homogeneous linear equation of second order
(54) n*+s-3',i ax - o! r,:o,

ox' ot( ay+ r*+p*+q**
ay'
where the coefficients are functions of r and y and they and their first and
second derivatives are continuous, by means of the characteristics (Chap.
22, sec, 7). The projections of the characteristic curves onto the xy-plane
(these projections are also called characteristics) satisfy
Tdxz-Sdxdg-tRdY2:9.
The characteristics are imaginary, real and distinct, or real and coincident
according as
7n-s2>0, 7.1?-,s2<0, rft-s2:0.

Du Bois-Reymond called these cases elliptic, hyperbolic, and parabolic,
respectively. He then pointed out that by introducing new real independent
variables
€:i@,y), n:*@,!),
39. Jour. fnr Math., 104, 1889, 241-301.
EXISTENCE THEOREMS 7OI
the above equation can always be transformed into one of the three types of
normal lorms
@ R'eat,. . ,'?r * q'* o71

+ Zu:0
^4,)
b\ -s'3-
\*t AC AI
+ P'*Ag+ A'?
" *Zu:O 0t1
k\ R'*+P'Y+A'?*zu:o
oE' ol o7l
respectively. The two families 6@,5) : const. and {(*, y) : const' are the
equations of two families of characteristics.
The supplementary conditions that can be imposed differ for the three
types ofequations. In the elliptic case (a) one considers a bounded domain of
thi ry-plane and specifies the value of a on the boundary (or an equivalent
condition) and asks for the value of u in the domain. For the initial-value
problem of the hyperbolic differential equation (b) one must specify a and
Auf An on some initial curve. There may also be boundary conditions' The
proper initial conditions for the parabolic case (c) were not sPecified at this
time, though it is now known that one initial condition and boundary
conditions can be imposed. This classification ofpartial differential equations
was extended to equations in more independent variables, higher-order
equations and to systems. Though the classification and the supplementary
conditions were not known early in the century, the mathematicians
gradually became aware ofthe distinctions and these figured in the existence
theorems they were able to Prove.
The work on existence theorems became a major activity with Cauchy,
who emphasized that existence can often be established where an explicit
solution is not available. In a series of papersao Cauchy noted that any
partial differential equation of order greater than one can be reduced to a
system of partial differential equations, and he treated the existence of a
solution for the system. He called his method the calcul des limites but it is
known today as the method of majorant functions. The essence of the method
is to show that a power series in the independent variables with a definite
domain of convergence does satisfy the system of equations. We shall illus-
trate the method in connection with Cauchy's work on ordinary differen-
tial equations (Chap. 29, sec. 4). His theorem covers only the case of
analytic coefficients in the equations and analytic initial conditions'
To obtain some concrete idea about Cauchy's work, we shall consider
what it implies for the second order equation in two independent variables
(55) r : f(2, x,Y, P, q, s, t)
40. Comp. Rend., 14, 1842, lO2C_i25 : (Euores, (l), 6, 461-67, and Conp' Rcnd'' 15, 1842'
4,1-59, 85-101, l3l-38 : (Euures, (l),7, 17-33' 33-49, 52-58.
7O2 PARTTAL DIFFEREMnAL EqUATIONS IEOO-r9OO
where, as usual, r : 7'zllxz and wherellis analytic in its variables. In this

case one must specify on the initial line * = 0 that
z(o,g) : zs(Y)' ui,O'o' : "'(Y)'

where zo and, z1 are analytic. (The initial line may be replaced by a curve,
in which case 0zl0x must be replaced by lzlAn.) If the above conditions are
fulfilled, then the solution z : z(t, y) exists and is unique and analytic in
some domain starting at the initial line.
Cauchy's work on systems was done independently and in somewhat
improved form by Sophie Kowalewsky (185G-91),ar who was a pupil of
Weierstrass and who pursued his ideas. Kowalewsky is one of the few
\flomen mathematicians of distinction. In 1816 Sophie Germain (1776-
l83l) had won a prize awarded by the French Academy for a paper on
elasticity. Kowalewsky, too, won the Paris Academy's prize, for a work of
1888 on the integration ofthe equations of motion for a solid body rotating
around a fixed point; in 1889 she became a professor of mathematics in
Stoclholm. The proofs of Cauchy and Kowalewsky were later improved by
Goursat.{'
It instead of (55), the given second order equation is in the form
(56) G(2, x,, g, p, q, r, s, t) : 0,
it is necessary to solve for r before it can be put in the form (55). To consider
a simple but vital case, if the equation is
"
: n# + 28
ffi * rf:', * rX * rYE + Fz : o,
where B, . . ., F are functions of r and y, then 0Gl0t must not be 0 to

l,
solve for r. In case dGlOr :0, the solution of the Cauchy problem need not
exist, and when it does is not unique. In the case of three or more inde-
pendent variables (let us consider three), and if the equation is written as
(s7)
\-1
Z
t,k
At*-a*,
a*u
02u
*1u'#,* ":'
where the coefficients are functions of the independent variables *11 r21 :rrd
x., then the exceptional case occurs when the initial surface ,S satisfies the
first order partial differential equation
o'
(58)
2o" *9,#,-
41. Jour. fw Math., 80, 1875, l-32.
42. Bull. Soc. Math, th Framc,26, 1098, 129-34.
703
Along such surfaces two solutions of (57) can be tangent and even have
higher-order contact. This property is the same as for the characteristic
curves of the first order equationlf(x, !, u, !, 8) : 0 (Chap. 22, sec. 5), and
so these surfaces S are also called characteristics. Physically the surfaces S
are wave fronts.
This theory of characteristics for the case of two independent variables
was known to Monge and to Andrd-Marie Amptre (1775-1836). fts exten-
sion to the case of second order equations in more than two independent
variables was first made by Albert Victor Bicklund (1845-1922),43 but was
not widely known until it was redone by Jules Beudon.aa
ln his Legons sur la Propagation des ondes (1903), Jacques Hadamard
(1865-1963), the leading French mathematician of this century, generalized
the theory of characteristics to partial differential equations of any order.
As an example, let us consider a system ofthree partial differential equations
of the second order in the dependent variables (, 1, and ( and the inde-
pendent variables xr,x2,...,*o. The Cauchy problem for this system is:
Given the values of {, 1, l, and A{lfu,7ql{x", and 0fl0x* on a "surface"
Mn-, of n - I dimensions, to find the functions (, 1, and' (. The values of
the second and higher derivatives of t, n, and ( may then be comPuted
unless Mr-, satisfies a first order partial differential equation of the sixth
degree, say H :0. All " surfaces " satisfying H :0 are characteristic
" surflaces." According to the theory of first order partial differential equa-
tions, the differential equation 11 : 0 has characteristic lines (curves)
defined by
d*, : dr, dxn -,
aHlah- aHlaPz- aHlaP*_r'
where Pr, Pr, . . . , Pn -, are the partial derivatives of x,, with respect to
r15 !(27 . taken along the " surface " Mn-r. These lines are called the
.., *o-1
bicharacteristics of the original second order system. In the theory of light
they are the rays.
The characteristics now play a vital role in the theory of partial dif-
ferential equations. For example, Darbouxas has given a powerful method
ofintegrating second order partial differential equations in two independent
variables that rests on the theory of characteristics. It converts the problem
to the integration of one or more ordinary differential equations and
embraces the methods of Monge, Laplace, and others.
Another class of existence theorems dealt with the Dirichlet problem,
that is, establishing the existence ofa solution of L'V : 0 either directly or
by means of the Dirichlet principle. The first existence proof of the Dirichlet
43, Math. Ann., 13, 1878, 4ll-28.

44. Bull. Soc. Math. de France, 25, . 1897, 108-20.
45. Ann. de I'Ecole Norm, Sz?., (l), 7, 1870, 175-40.
7O4 PARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EQUATIONS rBOO-rgOO
problem in two dimensions (but not of the Dirichlet pr,inciple of minimizing

the Dirichlet integral) was given by Hermann Amandus Schwarz (1843-
l92l), a pupil of Weierstrass, whom he succeeded at Berlin in 1892 and who
suggested the problem to him. Under general assumptions about the
bounding curve, and by using a process called the alternating procedure,46
he demonstrated the existence of a solution.aT
In the same year, 1870, Carl G. Neumann gave another prool of the
existence of a solution of the Dirichlet problem in three dimensions a8 by
using the method of arithmetic means, though he too did not use the Dirich-
let principle.ae The principal exposition of his ideas is in his Vorlesungen iiber
Rianann's Theorie der Abel'sehen Integrale.so
Then Henri Poincar€ s1 used the methode de balayage, the method of
"sweeping out," which approaches the problem by building a succession of
functions not harmonic in the domain rR but taking on the correct boundary
values, the functions becoming more and more harmonic,
Finally, David Hilbert reconstructed the calculus of variations method
of Thomson and Dirichlet and established the Dirichlet lrinciple as a method
for proving the existence of a solution of the Dirichlet problem. In 189952
Hilbert showed that under proper conditions on thc region, boundary
values, and the admissible functions U, the Dirichlet principle does hold.
He made the Dirichlet principle a powerful tool in function theory. In
another publication, of work done in I901,53 Hilbert gave more general
conditions.
The history of the Dirichlet principle is remarkable. Green, Dirichlet,
Thomson, and others of their time regarded it as a completely sound
method and used it freely. Then Riemann in his complex function theory
showed it to be extraordinarily instrumental in leading to major results.
All of these men were aware that the fundamental existence question was
not settled, even before Weierstrass announced his critique in 1870, which
discredited the method for several decades. The principle was then rescued
by Hilbert and was used and extended in this century. Had the progress
made with the use of the principle awaited Hilbert's work, a large segment
46. Schwarz's method is sketched in Felix Klein, Vorlesurgen iiber die Entwicklung d.er
Mathenatik im 19. Jahrhundert, Chelsea (reprint), 1950, l, p. 265, and given fully in A. R.
Forsyth, Theory of Functions, Dover (reprint), 1965, 2, Chap. 17. Many references are given
in the latter source.
47. Monalsber. Beiliner Akad., 1870,767-95: Gu. Math. Abh.,2, 144-71.
48. Kdn;glich Sdchsischen Ges. der Wiss. zu Leipzig, 1870, 49-56, 264-321,
49. The method is described in O. D. Kellogg, Foundations of Potential Theory, .lwlius
Springer, 1929,281 tr
50. Second cd., 1884, 238 tr
51. Amer. Jour. of Math., 12, 1890, 2ll-94 : (Euares, 9, 28-113.
52. Jahres. der Deut. Mqth.-Verein., 8, 1900, l8,l-88 : Gu. Abh.,3, l0-14,
53. Math. Ann., 59, 1904, 16l-86 = Gcs. Abh., 3, 15-37.
705
of nineteenth-century work on potential theory and function theory would

have been lost.
The Laplace equation L,V : 0 is the basic form of elliptic differential
equations. Many more existence theorems were established for more
general elliptic differential equations, such as
02u 02u 0u b=- -Au
* cu:
(5e) =--*...._,*+a--+ U.
dtt' oy' ox d!
The variety of such theorems is vast. We shall mention just one key result.
The existence and uniqueness ofa solution of this equation (the value ofthe
solution is prescribed on the boundary) was demonstrated by Picard 5a lor
domains of sufficiently small area. The result has been extended to more
variables, large domains, and in other resPects by Picard and others. Picard
also established 55 that every equation of the above form (and even slightly
more general) whose coefficients are analytic functions possesses only analytic
solutions inside the domain in which the solution is sought, even though the
solution assumes non-analytic boundary values.
The theorems discussed thus far have generally dealt with analytic
differential equations and analytic initial or boundary data. However, such
conditions are too restrictive for applications because the given physical
data may not be analytic. Another major class of theorems deals with Iess
stringent conditions. We shall give just one example. Riemann's method,
which applies to the hyperbolic equation, relies upon the existence of his
characteristic function a and, as we pointed out, the eistence of u was not
established by Riemann.
For this hyperbolic case (see [a0]), Du Bois-Reymond in 1889 sought
the proper conditions and obtained resultsso which, expressed for the case
where r : const. and y : const. are the characteristics, read thus: Given
the continuous functions u and, 0ul0n along a curve AB that is cut not more
than once by any characteristic line, then there exists one and only one
solution u of the differential equation which takes'on the given values of u
and 0ul0n along AB. This solution is defined in the rectangle determined by
the characteristics through -.4 and through B. If instead the values ofa con-
tinuous function r on two segments ofcharacteristics which abut one another
are given, then z is again uniquely determined in the rectangle determined
by the characteristics. In terms of x, y, and, t as spatial coordinates, the first
result states that the surface z(x, y) goes through a given space curve and
with a given inclination. The second result means that the solution or
surface is enclosed in the space determined by two intersecting space curves.
54. Comp. Rend., 107,1888, 939-41, Jour. de Math., (4), 6' 1890, l4F2l0' Jotr. dc Math.,
(5), 2, 1896, 29F304.
55. Jour dc I'Enh Poly.,60, 1890,89-105.
56. Jour. fnr Math., 104, 1889, 241-30t.
76 PARTIAL DTFFER ENTIAL EqUATTONS rBOO-rgOO
For the continuous initial conditions z and dal0n (and, z in the second case),
the solutions will be regular or satisfy the differential equation everywhere
in the rectangles described above. Discontinuities in a and 1ulAn will
propagate along the characteristics in the rectangle.
A great deal of work was done in the second halfofthe century on the
existence of eigenvalues for Au + k2u : 0 considered in a domain D. The
main result is that for a given domdin and under any one of the three
boundary conditions u :0, 0ul0n :0, 0ul0n * hu :0 (/z > 0 when the
positive normal is directed outside the domain), there are always an infinite
number of discrete values of *2, for each of which there is a solution. In two
dimensions the vibrations of a membrane fixed along its boundary illus-
trate this theorem. The values of * are the frequencies of the infinitely many
purely harmonic vibrations. The corresponding solutions give the deforma-
tion of the membrane in carrying out its characteristic oscillations.
The first major step was the proof by Schwarz 67 of the existence of the
6rst eigenfunction of
au + {f(x,g)u: o,
that is, the existence of a U, such that
LU,+k?f(x,y)u,:o
and U, : 0 on the boundary of the domain considered. His method gave
a procedure for finding the solution and permitted the calculation of &f.
Picard 68 then established the existence of the second eigenvalue *!.
Schwarz also showed in the l8B5 paper that when the domain varies
continuously, the value of *f, the first characteristic number, also varies
continuously; and as the domain becomes smaller, ,tf increases unboundedly.
Thus a smaller membrane gives off a higher first harmonic.
In lB94 Poincardse demonstrated the existence and the essential
properties of all the eigenvalues of
(60) Lu+lu:-f,
,\ complex, in a bounded, three-dimensional domain, with z : 0 on the
boundary. The existence of a was demonstrated by a generalization of
Schwarz's method. He proved next that u(,\) is a meromorphic function of
the complex variable ,\ and that the poles are real; these are just the
eigenvalues lo. Then he obtained the characteristic solutions U,, that is,
Aq + k?q: o (in the interior)

Ut : 0 (on the boundary).
57, Acta Soc. Fennicae, 15, 1885, 315-62: G*. Math. Abh., l, 223-69.
58. Conp. Rend., 117,1893, 502-7.
59. Rcndiconti del Circoh Mahmatito di Palermo, S, 1894, 57-155 : (Euarcst 9, 123-96.
BIBLIOCRAPI{Y 707
The /rf are the characteristic numbers (eigenvalues) and determine the
frequencies of the respective characteristic solutions.
Physically Poincar€'s result has the following significance' The func-
tionrflin (60) can be thought of as an applied force. The free oscillations of
a mechanical system are those at which the forced oscillations degenerate
and become infinite. In fact, (60) is the equation ol an oscillating system
excited by a periodically varying force ol amplitudel and the character-
istic solutions are the free oscillations of the system, which, once excited,
continue indefinitely. The lrequencies of the free oscillations, which are
proportional to the *,, are calculated by Poincard's method as the values of
y'l for which the forced oscillation u becomes infinite'
At the end of the century the systematic theory of boundary- and
initial-value problems for partial differential equations, which dates from
Schwarz's fundamental lBB5 paper, was still young' The work in this area
expanded rapidly in the twentieth century.
Bibliograplry
Bacharach, Max: Abriss der Geschichtc der Potentiahtuuie, Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1883.
Burkhardt,H.:..EntwicklungennachoscillirendenFunctionenundlntegration
der Differentialgleichungen der mathematischen Physik," Jahres' dcr Deut'
Math.-Verei.n., Vol. 10, 1908, l-1804.
Burkhardt, H. and W. Franz Meyer: " Potentialtheorie ," Ercyk' dcr Math' Wiss''
B. G. Teubner, 1899-1916, II A7b,464-503'
Cauchy, Augustin-Louis: (Euares complites, Gauthier-Villars, 1890, (2), I'
Fourier, Joslph: ?/ra Analytital Theory of Heat (1822), Dover reprint of English
translation, 1955.
(Euores, 2 vols., Gauthier-Villars, 1888-90; Georg olms (reprint), 1970'
Green, George: Essay on the Applicalion of Mathematical Analysis to the Thtorics of
-i Etectrixity and Magnctism, 1828, reprinted by Weziita-Melins Aktiebolag'
1958; also in Ostwald's Klassiker 16l (in German), Wilhelm Engelmann'
1895.
Mathematieal Papers, Macrnillan, l87l; Chelsea (reprint), 1970'
Heine,Eduard:HandbuchderKugelfunktionen,2vols',1878-gl'PhysicaVerlag
-: (reprint), 1961.
Helmholtz, Hermann von : " Theorie der Luftschwingungen in Riihren mit offenen
Enden," Oslwald's .Klassitter der exakl,en Wissenschqften, Wilhelm Engelmann'
1896.
Klein, Felix: Vorlesungcn nber die Entwicklung der Matlumatik im 19' Jahthunderl' 2
vols., Chelsea (rePrint), 1950.

Langer, R. E. : " Fourier Series, the Genesis and Evolution of a Theoty," Amer'
Math. Monthlg,54, Part II, 1947, l-86.
:
Pockels, Friedrich: Uber dic partieile Diferentialgleichung Lu + k2u 0, B' G'
Teubner, 1891.
7oB PARTTAL DTFFERENTTAL EeuATroNs r8oo-r9oo
Poincar6, Henri: CEuores, Gauthier-Villars, 1954, 9.
Rayleigh, Lord (Strutt, John William) : The Theory of Sound, 2nd ed., 2 vols.,
Riemann, Bernhard: Gesammelte mathematische Werke, 2nd ed,, Dover (reprint),
1953, pp. 156-211.
Sommerfeld, Arnold: " Randwertaufgaben in der Theorie der partiellen Differen-
tialgleichungen," Encgk. der math. liliss.,B. G. Teubner, 1899-1916, II A7c,
504-70.
Todhunter, Isaac, and Karl Pearson: A History oJ the Theory of Elasticitg, 2 vols,,
Whittaker, Sir Edmund: History of .the Theories of Aether and Electricity, rev, ed.,
Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1951, Vol. I.
29
Ordinary Differential Equations
in the Nineteenth Century
La Physique ne nous donne pas seulement l'occasion de
rdsoudre des probldmes . . . elle nous fait prdssentir la solution.
neNnr porxcenf
l. Introduction
Ordinary differential equations arose in the eighteenth century in direct
response to physical problems. By tackling more complicated physical
phenomena, notably in the work on the vibrating string, the mathematicians
arrived at partial differential equations. In the nineteenth century the roles
of these two subjects were somewhat reversed. The efforts to solve partial
differential equations by the method of separation of variables led to the
problem of solving ordinary differential equations. Moreover, because the
partial differential equations were expressed in various coordinate systems
the ordinary differential equations that resulted were strange ones and not
solvable in closed form. The mathematicians resorted to solutions in infinite
series which are now known as special functions or higher transcendental
functions as opposed to the elementary transcendental functions such as
sin .r, e*, and log *.
After much work on the extended variety ol ordinary differential
equations, some deep theoretical studies were devoted to tyPes of such
equations. These theoretical investigations also differentiate the nineteenth-
century work from that'of the eighteenth century. The contributions of the
new century were so vast that, as in the case ofpartial differential equations,
we cannot hope to survey all of the major developments. Our topics are a
sample of what was created during the century.
2. Series Solutions and Special Functions

As we have just observed, to solve the ordinary differential equations that
resulted from the method of separation of variables applied to partial
7o9
7to oRDINARY DTFFERENTTAL EQUATIONS rBOO-I9OO
differential equations, the mathematicians, without worrying much about

the existence and form the solutions should take, turned to the method of
infinite series (Chap. 21, sec. 6). Of the ordinary diflerential equations that
resulted from separation of variables the most important is the Bessel
equation
(1) x2g' + t!' * (x, - n)y :0,

where z, a parameter, can be complex and * can also be complex. However,
for Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel (l78tt-1846), a mathematician and director of
the astronomical observatory in Kcinigsberg , n and r were real. Special
cases of this equation occurred as early as 1703, when Jacob Bernoulli
mentioned it as a particular solution in a letter to Leibniz, and thereafter in
more e<tensive work by Daniel Bernoulli and Euler (Chap. 21, secs. 4 and 6,
and Chap. 22, sec. 3). Special cases also occurred in the writings of Fourier
and Poisson. The first systematic study of solutions of this equation was made
by Bessel l while working on the motion of the planets. The equation has two
indcpendent solutions for each z, denoted toilay by J,(*) and Y,(x) and
called Bessel functions of the first and second kind, respectively. Bessel, whose
work on the equation dates from 1816, gave first the integral relation (for
integral z)
I f2,,
_EJ"
Jo@) cos (zr, - x sin u) du
(he wrote.I[ and his,t is our x). Bessel also obtained the series
(2)
r'(,) : m#T y=Lr, +!w.r)-

{, - <, * ,l
+ F:rT6
}
In lBlB Bessel proved that Jo (*) has an infinite number ofreal zeros. In the
1824 paper Bessel also gave the recursion formula (for integral z)
xJn*1(x) - 2nJ"(x) * xJo_r@) : e,
and many other relations involving the Bessel function of the first kind.
The generalization of the Bessel function Jr(r) to complex z and * was made
by several men2 with (2) remaining as the correct form.
Since there should be two independent solutions for a second order
equation, many mathematicians sought it. When z is not an integer this
second solution is J-"(x). For integral z the second solution was given by
l, Abh. Konig. Akad. der W*s. Berlin, 1824, 1-52, pub, 1826 Werke, l, 8+109.
=
2. Chiefly by Eugen C. J. Lommel (1837-99) in his Srudirr iber die Bcssel'sclun Furutiorcn
(1868).
SERIES SOLUTTONS AND SPECTAL FUNCTTONS 7rt
Carl G. Neumann.o However, the form adopted most commonly today was
given by Hermann Hankel (1B39-73),{ namely,
Y.(z) :ZcoffP#{"- G1
+ 2v - >L- Zil
$ 11r72111 -"+2t(n - r - I) !
z-,rT
t=O
6 also gave the expansion of an analytic
where 7 is Euler's constant. Neumann
function;[(z), namely,
"f("): uoJo(z) + arJr(z) + urJr(z) *"',

where the clr are constants and can be determined.
Many mathematicians, usually working in celestial mechanics, arrived
independently at the Bessel functions and at hundreds of other relations and
expressions for these functions. Some idea of the vast literature on these
functions may be gained from perusing G. N. Watson's A Trcatise on tlu
Theorg of Bessel Functions.G
The Legendre polynomials or spherical functions of one variable and
the spherical surface functions, which are functions of two variables, had
already been introduced by Legendre and Laplace (Chap.22, sec.4). The
Legendre polynomials satisfy the Legendre differential equation
0 - *')S' - 2xg' * n(n + l)y : a.
This equation, as we know, results from separation of variables applied to

the potential equation expressed in spherical coordinates. In 1833, Robert
Murphy (d. lB43), a fellow at Cambridge University, wrote a text, Elcmentary
Principles of the Theories oJ Electricitg, Heat and Molecular Actions. ln it he put
together some older results on Legendre polynomials and obtained some new
ones. Since the major results were already known, we shall not present the
details of Murphy's work except to point out that it was systematic and that
he showed that "any" function;f(r) can be expanded in terms of the P"(r)
by applying term-by-term integration and the orthoSonality ProPerty
(integral theorem).
Ileine,? treating the problem of the potential for the exterior of an
ellipsoid ofrevolution and for the shell between confocal ellipsoids of revolu-
tion (Chap. 28, sec. 5), introduced spherical harmonics of the second kind,
usually denoted by Q"(.r), which provide a second independent solution
3. Theorie der Bcssel'scfun Funktionen, 1867, 41.

4. Math. .4nn., l, 1869, 467-501.
5. Jour. fir
Math.,67,1867, 310-14.
6. Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., 1944.
7. Jour, fir Math.,26, 1843, t85-216.
7t2 oRDINARY DTFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS IBOO-r gOO
of Legendre's equation. The Legendre functions, like the Bessel functions,

have been extended to complex z and complex x, and a number of alter-
native representations and relationships among them have been obtained.s
The study of special functions that arise as series solutions of ordinary
diflerential equations was furthered by Gauss in a famous paper of l8l2 on
the hypergeometric series.s In this paper Gauss made no use of the differential
equation
x(l - x)y' + {y - (" + p + t)x}y' - dpy : 0,
but he did in unpublished material.lo Of course the equation and the series
solution
(3) F(o,F,y;x) : r + fi- *++*ffii xz +...

were already known because they had been studied by Euler (Chap. 21,
sec. 6). Gauss recognized that for special values of u, p, and 7 the series
included almost all the elementary functions then known and many higher
transcendental functions such as the Bessel functions and spherical functions.
In addition to proving any number of properties of the series, Gauss estab-
lished the famous relation
F(a'B,y;1): r(y)l(y-a-P)
t(y-a)t(y-p)
He also established the convergence of the series (cL Chap. 40, sec. 5). The
notation F(", F, y; x) is due to Gauss.
Another class of special functions was introduced by Lam6.11 In
Chapter 28, sec. 5, we pointed out that Lam6, working on a steady-state
temperature distribution in an ellipsoid, separated Laplace's equation in
ellipsoidal coordinates p, p., and, v. This process gives the same ordinary
differential equations in each of the three variables, namely,
)2 E( o\ dE(p)
(4) (p'- h')(p'- 721 :-:-Y1 + p(2p, - h2 - k2)'
dp
+ {(1,' + kz)p - n(n + l)p'?}E(p) : 0,

with appropriate changes for p and z in place of p. Here h2 and k2 are the
parameters in the equations of the flamilies of the coordinate surfaces and p
and n are constants. This equation is known as Lam6's differential equation.
8.See, for cxample, E. W. Hobson, The Theory oJ Spheri.cal and Ellipsoidal Harmonics,
1931, Chelsea (reprint), 1955.
9.Comm. Soc. Sci. Gott.,2, l8l3 : Wuke,3, 123-62,
10. Werke, 3, 207-30.
ll. Jour. dc Math.,2, 1837, 147-831'4, 1839, 126-63.
SERTES SOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL FUNCTIONS 713
The solutions E(p) zre called Lamd lunctions or ellipsoidal harmonics. For
integral z these functions fall into four classes of the form
E'"(P) :* alPn-2 *"'
aoP"
or such polynomials multiplied by \F=P or t/f,2 - k' or both factors.

For a given value ofz, the number ofsuch functions (to insure some properties
of E(p)) is 2n * 1.
The second solution of Lam€'s equation (resulting from other conditions
or properties of E(p) ) is
Fi$) : dp
(2n + I)E\G)
T: W
and such functions are called Lamd functions ofthe second kind. These were
12 and Heine.13
introduced by Liouville
The differential equations
# *, - 2k2 cos2,t)i -- o
ft-A-2k2cosh2t){:o
arose in Mathieu's work on the vibrations of an elliptical membrane la and
they also arise in problems on the potential of elliptical cylinders when
separation ol variables is applied to Az * kzu : 0 expressed in elliptical
cylindrical coordinates in two dimensions. These elliptic coordinates,
incidentally, are related to rectangular coordinates by the equations
r: icosh f cos ?, y:isinhfsin?,
where x : + h, ! : 0 are the foci of the conlocal ellipses and hyperbolas of
the lamily of ellipses and the family of hyperbolas in the elliptic coordinate
system. The variety olforms in which Mathieu's equation is written and the
many notations for the solutions by different authors Present a confusing
picture. The functions defined by either differential equation were called by
Heine functions of the elliptic cylinder and are now called Mathieu functions.
Mathieu and Heine first got series expressions for the solutions. Then they
sought to fix the parameter a so that one class of solutions is periodic and of
period 22. The problem of finding periodic solutions, which are the most
important ones for physical applications, was pursued throughout the
century. In 188315 Gaston Floquet (1847-1920) published a complete dis-
cussion of the existence and properties of the periodic solutions of a linear
differential equation of the zth order having periodic coefficients which have
the same period <u, The general properties of the solutions having been
12. Jour. d,e Math., 10, 1845,222-28.
13. Jour. far Math., 29, 1845, 18F208.
14. Jour. de Math., (2),13, 1868, 137-201.
15. Ann. de l'Ecole Norm. Su!., (2), 12, 1883, 47-48.
714 oRDINARY DIFFERENTTAL EQUATTONS I SOO-r gOO
determined, later writers devoted considerable attention to the problem of

discovering practical methods of finding them. No general methods were
found (cf. sec. 7).
A widely studied class of special functions was introduced by Heinrich
Weber (1842-1913) in 1868.10 Weber was interested in integrating Az f
k2u : 0in a domain bounded by two parabolas. He therefore changed from
rectangular coordinates to parabolic coordinates (which are a limiting case of
elliptic coordinates) through the transformation
x: t2 _ ,lr, s:2*),
For f : const. and for r1 : const., the two families of curves are families of
parabolas, with each member of one family cutting the members of the other
orthogonally. The ordinary differential equations which Weber derived from
the reduced wave equation by separation of variables are
d2E
vfi+{r'?+a)E:o
dzH
7f+{*'n'-a)H:o'
Weber gave four particular solutions of the second equation in the form of
definite integrals. The solutions are called parabolic cylinder functions.
Weber also showed that the only case in which separation of variables can be
applied to Az + k2u : 0, among all orthogonal coordinate systems, is that
of confocal surfaces of the second degree or specializations thereof.
The class of special functions is far more extensive than we can indicate
here. The above-mentioned types and many others that were introduced
serve to solve differential equations in some bounded domain and to represent
arbitrary functions (usually the initial functions of a partial differential
equations problem) in that domain. The limitation to bounded domains is
imposed by the orthogonality property. In the basic case of the trigono-
metric functions this domain is ( - z, zr) because, for example,
f,
l_,tn**sinn*dx:0 if m * n.
The problem ofsolving ordinary diflerential equations over infinite intervals

or semi-infinite intervals and of obtaining expansions of arbitrary functions
over such intervals was also tackled by many men during the second half of
the century and such special functions as Flermite functions first introduced
by Hermite in 186417 and Nikolai J. Sonine (1849-1915) in l8gQta serve to
solve this problem.
16. Math.lzr., l, 1869, l-36.

17. Conp. Rend.,58, 1864, 93-100 and 266-73 : (Euarcs, 2, 293-308.
18. Math. Ann., 16, 1880, l-80.
STURM-LIOUWLLE THEORY 7r5
To work with all these types of special functions one must know their
properties as intimately as one knows the properties of the elementary
functions. Also because these special functions are more complicated the
properties are likewise so. The literature both in original papers and texts is
almost incredibly vast. Whole treatises have been devoted to Bessel functions,
spherical functions, ellipsoidal functions, Mathieu functions, and other
types.
3. Sturm-Liouaille Theory
The problems involving partial differential equations of mathematical physics
usually contain boundary conditions such as the condition that the vibrating
string must be fixed at the endpoints. When the method of separation of
variables is applied to a partial differential equation this equation is resolved
into two or more ordinary differential equations and the boundary conditions
on the desired solution become boundary conditions on one ordinary
differential equation. The ordinary equation generally contains a Parameter,
which in fact results from the separation ofvariables procedure, and solutions
can usually be obtained for particular values ofthe parameter. These values
are called eigenvalues or characteristic values and the solution for any one
eigenvalue is called an eigenfunction. Moreover, to meet the initial condition
or conditions of the original problem it is necessary to express a given
functionrf(x) in terms of the eigenfunctions (see, for example, I l] of Chap.
28).
These problems of determining the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions ofan
ordinary differential equation with boundary conditions and of expanding a
given function in terms ofan infinite series ofthe eigenfunctions, which date
from about I 750, became more prominent as new coordinate systems r,vere
introduced and new classes of functions such as Bessel functions, Legendre
polynomials, Lam6 functions, and Mathieu functions arose as the eigen-
functions of ordinary differential equations. Two men, Charles Sturm
(1803-55), professor of mechanics at the Sorbonne, and Joseph Liouville
(1809-82), a friend of Sturm and professor of mathematics at the Colldge de
France, decided to tackle the general problem for any second order ordinary
differential equation. Sturm had been working since lB33 on problems of
partial diflerential equations, primarily on the flow of heat in a bar of
variable density, and hence was fully aware of the eigenvalue and eigen-
function problem.
The mathematical ideas he applied to this problem le are closely
related to his investigations of the reality and distribution of the roots of
algebraic equations. His ideas on differential equations, he says, came from
the study of diflerence equations and a passage to the limit.
19. Jour. dc Math., 1,1836, 106-86 and 373-444.
716 oRDINARY DTFFERENTTAL EQUATTONS rEOO-r gOO
Liouville, informed by Sturm of the problems he was working on, took

up the same subject.20 The results in the several papers of these two men are
quite detailed and are most conveniently summarized in modern notation as
follows. They considered the general second order equation
(5) Lg'+My'*ll[y:9,
where Z, M, and -ly' are continuous functions of x, Z is not zero, and ,\ is a
parameter. Such an equation can be transformed, by rnultiplying through by
| dx,
L-a etML- into
!*Patfl + :0, ?(*) > o, p(x) > 0.

^p(x1s
The boundary conditions to be satisfied by the original or transformed
equation can have the general form
y'(a)-hrg(o\-n h' > o' h2 > o' a <
s'(b) + h,ldi : o'
b'
Sturm and Liouville demonstrated the following fundamental results :
(a) The problem has a non-zero solution only when tr takes on any one
ofa sequence of values ln of positive numbers which increase to co.
(b) For each ln the solutions are multiples of one function u,, which
one can normalize by the conditio cr'" dx :
" l! 1 .
(c) The orthogonality property, l! cr^r, dx : 0 for m I n, holds.
(d) Each function if twice differentiable in (a, b) and satisfying the

boundary conditions can be expanded in a uniformly convergent series
f(x) : \c*t*(x)
where
c": JaIrb pJa"(x) dx.

(e) The equality
l.h
J" cf'a*
: Z'l
obtains. This Iast equality, called the ,;;, equality, had already been
demonstrated purely formally by Marc-Antoine Parseval ( ?-1836) in I 799 21
20. Jour. de Math., l, 1836, 253-65; 2, 1837, 16-35 and 418-36.
21. Min. des saa. ihangers, (2), l, 1805, 639-48.
EXISTENCE THEOREMS 717
for the set of trigonometric functions. From it there follows the inequality
demonstrated by Bessel in 1B2822 also for trigonometric series, namely,
o-.
Z,z = J)vatr
n=1
Actually the Sturm-Liouville results were not satisfactorily established
in all respects. The proofthat;t(.r) can be represented as an infinite sum oflthe
eigenfunctions was inadequate. One difficulty was the matter of the com-
pleteness ofthe set of eigenfunctions, which for a continuous../(x) on (4,6) is
the condition (e) above and which loosely means that the set ofeigenfunctions
is large enough to represent " any" f (x). Also the question of the sense in
which the series ! cnzn(r) converges to;f(x), whether pointwise, uniformly,
or in some more general sense, was not covered though Liouville did give
convergence proofs in some cases, using theory developed by Cauchy and
Dirichlet.
4. Existence Theorems
We have already noted under this same topic in the chapter on nineteenth-
century partial differential equations that as mathematicians found the
problem of obtaining solutions for specific differential equations more and
more difficult they turned to the question, Given a difierential equation does
it have a solution for given initial conditions and boundary conditions ? The
same movement, of course to be expected, occurred in ordinary differential
equations. That the question of existence was neglected so long is partly due
to the fact that differential equations arose in physical and geometrical
problems, and it was intuitively clear that these equations had solutions.
Cauchy was the first to consider the question ofthe existence ofsolutions
of differential equations and succeeded in giving two methods. The first,
applicable to
(6) !' : f(x,!),
was created sometime between 1820 and 1830 and summarized in his
E xercic e s d' analg sc.23
This method, the essence of which may be lound in Euler,za utilizes the
same idea as is involved in the integral as a limit of a sum. Cauchy wished
to show that there is one and only oney :;f(.r) that satisfies (6) and which
meets the given initial condition that yn : f@). He divided (xo, x) into z
parts Axo, A*rr..., A,tn-, and formed
!t+t : !t * f(xsY) Mu
22. Astronom. Nach,, 6, 1828, 33348.
23. Vol. l, 1840,327 ff. : CEuures, (2), 11,399-465.
24. Inst. Cal. Int., 1,1768,493.
7t8 oRDTNARv DTFFERENTTAL EeuATIoNs I8oa-Igoo
where rr is any value of * in &. Then by definition
t,t:lo+)f@,,v,)Lxu
l-O
Now Cauchy shows that as z becomes infinite yo converges to a unique
function
! -- lo * li"ta,a *
and that this function satisfies (6) and the initial conditions.
Cauchy assumed thatf (x, g) and fu are continuous for all real values of
x and, g in the rectangle determined by the intervals (xo, x) and (ys,y). ln
1876 Rudolph Lipschitz (1832-1903) weakened the hypotheses of the
theorem.sE His essential condition was that for all (r, yr) and (x, 92) in
the rectangle l* - *ol < o, lS - lol 3 b, that is, for any two points with
the same abscissa, there is a constant I( such that
ll@'c,) -.f@'s)l < K(!, - v,).

This condition is known as the Lipschitz condition, and the existence theorem
is cdled the Cauchy-Lipschitz theorem.
Cauchy's second method of establishing the existence of solutions of
differential equations, the method of dominant or majorant functions, is
more broadly applicable than his fust one and was applied by Cauchy in the
complex domain. The method was presented in a series of papers in the
Comptcs Rmdus during the years 1839-42.36 The method was called by Cauchy
the cahul dcs limitcs because it provides lower limits within which the solution
whose existence is established is sure to converge. The method was simplified
by Briot and Bouquet and their version s? has become standard.
To illustrate the method let us note how it applies to
c' : -f(x,!),
where ;f is analytic in .r and y. The theorem to be established reads thus:
If for
(7)
fl:ru,nt
the function f(x,y) is analytic in the neighborhood of Pr: (xo,yo), the
differential equation then has a unique solution y(*) which is analytic in a
25. Bull. des Sci. (l),
10, 1876, 149-59.
Math.,
26. (Ewrcs, (l), Vols. 4 to 7 and10. The most imPortant PaPers are in the Comptes Rendus
for Aug. 5 and Nov. 21, 1839, Junc 29, Oct. 26, Nov. 2, and Nov. 9 of 1840, andJune 20
and July 4 of 1842.
27. ConP. Rend., 39, 1854, 368-71.
7r9
neighborhood of*o and which reduces togo when x : xo. The solution can
be represented by the series
(B) !:lo-tEL/* - xo) *#A - xo)'*#<. -xo)'*'..

wherein yL: dyldx at (xo,y) and similarly for y[,g[,..., and where the
derivatives are determined by successive differentiation of the original
diflerential equation in which y is treated as a function of .r.
The method of proot which we merely sketch, uses first the fact that
because;f(,r, y) is analytic in the neighborhood of (*o,yi, which for con-
venience we take to be (0, 0), there is a circle ofradius a abort xo : 0 and a
circle of radius b abotfi yo : 0 in which/(r, y) is analytic. Then;t(x, y) has
an upper bound -rl,{ lor all values of * and y in the respective circles. Now
the very method of obtaining the series (B) guarantees that it formally
satisfies (7). The problem is to show that the series converges.
Toward this end one sets up the majorant function
F(*,s):2#**n,
which is the expansion of
(9) r'
F(x,u\ : -,---4=-.
(t - xla)(l - slb)
One shows next that the series solution of
dY
(10)
a: F(x, y)
namely,
-2 -3
(l l) Y:Y'sx+Ylh.+rifr+...,
which is derived from (10) in the same way that (B) is derived from (7),
dominates term for term the series (8). Hence if ( I I ) converges then (B) does.
To show that (ll) converges one solves (10) explicitly using the value ofF
in (9) and shows that the series expansion of the solution, which must be
(l l), converges.
The method does not in itselfdetermine the precise radius ofconvergence
of the series for y. Numerous efforts were therelore devoted to showing that
the radius can be extended. However, the papers do not give the full domain
of convergence and are of little practical importance.
A third method of establishing the existence of solutions of ordinary
differential equations, probably known to Cauchy, was first published by
Liouville 28 for a second order equation. This is the method of successive
28. Jour. de Math., (l), 3, 1838, 561-6t4.
72O ORDTNARY DTFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS rBOO-r9OO
approximation and is now credited to Emile Picard because he gave the

method a general form.2e For the equation in real x and y,
!' : -f(x,!),
wherein;f(x, y) is analytic in * and y and whose solution g : -f(r) is to pass
through (*o,yi, the method is to introduce the sequence of functions
yflx) : uo + at
["of{t,to)
ca@) : vo + dt
!*"lU,t,UD
s,(x) : uo + t" dt.

"-ftt,a^_Jt))
Then one proves that yn(r) tends to a limit y(r) which is the one and only
continuous function of x satisfying the ordinary differential equation and
such that S@; : yo. The method as usually presented today presupposes
that f (x, g) satisfies only the Lipschitz condition. The method was extended
to second order equations by Picard in the 1893 paper and has also been
extended to complex x and y.
The various methods described above were applied not only to higher
order ordinary differential equations but to systems of differential equations
for complex-valued variables. Thus Cauchy extended his second type of
existence theorem to systems of first order ordinary differential equations in
n dependent variables. He also extended this method of calcul dcs limites to
systems in the complex domain,so Cauchy's result reads as follows: Given the
system of equations
( l2) fur* : -f*{*, ro,''', ! n - r),
let /6, . . .,h-, b. monogenic (single-valued analytic) functions of their

arguments and let them be developable in the neighborhood of the initial
values
x : trlo : 1o, "'t!r-r : Iltr-r
in positive integral powers of
x - €,!o - 1o, " 'tln-t - th-t.
Then there are n power series in * - f convergent in the neighborhood of
a : f which when substituted for yo, . . .tln-r in (12) satisfy the equations.
29. Jour. de Math., (4), 6, 1890, 145-210t and (4), 9, 1893, 217-?1.
30. For different existence proofs on systems of first order differential equations, see the
second relerence to Painlevd in the bibliography at the end of this chapter.
THE THEORY OF STNGULARITIES 721
These power series are unique. They give a regular solution of the system
and take on the initial values. In this generality the result can be found in
Cauchy's " M6moire sur I'emploi du nouveau calcul, appeld calcul des
31 Thus
limites, dans I'int6gration d'un systdme d'dquations diff6rentielles."
the idea was to content oneself with establishing the existence ofand obtaining
the solution in the neighborhood of one point in the complex plane.
Weierstrass obtained the same result in the same year (1842) but did not
publish it until his Werke came out in 1894.32
5. The Theorg of Singularities

In the middle of the nineteenth century the study of ordinary diflerential
equations took a new course. The existence theorems and Sturm-Liouville
theory presuppose that the differential equations contain analytic functions
or, at the very least, continuous functions in the domains in which solutions
are considered. On the other hand some ofthe differential equations already
considered, such as Bessel's, Legendre's, and the hypergeometric equation,
when expressed so that the coefficient ofthe second derivative is unity, have
coefficients that are singular, and the form of the series solutions in the
neighborhood of the singular points, particularly that of the second solution,
is peculiar. Flence mathematicians turned to the study of solutions in the
neighborhood of singular points, that is, points at which one or more of the
coefficients are singular. A point at which all the coefficients are at least
continuous and usually analytic is called an ordinary point.
The solutions in the neighborhood of singular points are obtainable as
series, and the knowledge of the proper form of the series must be at hand
before calculating it. This knowledge can be obtained only from the differen-
tial equation. The new problem was described by Lazarus Fuchs (1833-
1902) in a paper of 1866 (see below). " In the present condition ofscience the
problem of the theory of differential equations is not so much to reduce a
given differential equation to quadratures, as to deduce from the equation
itself the behavior of its integrals at all points of the plane, that is, for all
values of the complex variable." For this problem Gauss's work on the
hypergeometric series pointed the way. The leaders were Riemann and
Fuchs, the latter a student of Weierstrass and his successor at Berlin. The
theory which resulted is called the Fuchsian theory of linear differential
equations,
Attention in this new area concentrated on linear differentidl equations
of the form
(13) y6\ + !./z)y6- 1) + "' + P"(z)y : o,
31. Con!. Rcnd., 15, 1842, 14-25 : CEwres (l)' 7,5-17.

32. Math. Werke, 1,75-85.
722 ORDTNARY DTFPERENTTAL EQUATTONS rBOO-rgOO
where the p{z) arc single-valued analytic functions of complex z except at

isolated singular points. This equation was emphasized because its solutions
embrace all the elementary functions and even some higher functions, such
as the modular and automorphic functions we shall encounter later.
Before considering solutions at and in the neighborhood of singular
points, let us note a basic theorem that does follow from Cauchy's existence
theorem on systems ofordinary differential equations but which was proven
directly by Fuchs,os though he acknowledged his indebtedness to Weier-
strass's lectures. If the coefficients /1, . . . , pn are analytic at a point a and in
some neighborhood of that point, and if arbitrary initial conditions for y and
its first a - I derivatives are given at z : a, then there is a unique power
series solution for y in terms of z of the form
(14) v@:>)to'(o)(.-o)'
To Cauchy's result Fuchs added that the series is absolutely and uniformly
convergent within any circle having d as a center and in which the pr(z) are
analytic. It follows that the solutions can possess singularities only where the
coefficients are singular.
The study of solutions in the neighborhood of singular points was
initiated by Briot and Bouquet.3a Since their results for first order linear
equations were soon generalized we shall consider the more general treat-
ments-
To get at the behavior of solutions in the neighborhood of singular
points Riemann proposed an unusual approach. Though the pr(z) in (l 3) are
assumed to be single-valued functions analytic except at isolated singular
points, the solutions y,(z), analytic except possibly at the singular points, are
not in general single-valued over the entire domain of z-values. Let us
suppose that we have a fundamental set of solutions, ylz), i:1,2,...,n,
that is, z independent solutions of the kind specified in the above theorem.
Then the general solution is
! : ctUr * czlz *'''l ctln
wherein the c1 are constants.

If
we now trace the behavior of an analytic g, along a closed path
enclosing a singular point, y, will change its value to another branch of the
same function though it remains a solution of the differential equation. Since
any solution is a linear combination of a particular solutions, the altered y,,
33. Jour. ftr Moth.,66, 1866, 12l-60 : Math. Werkc, I, 159 tr

34. Jour. d'Ecole Polg., (l),21, 1856,85-132, 133-198, 199-254.
THE THEORY OF SINCULARITIES 723
say gi, is still a linear combination of the y,. Thus we obtain

li:crlt*"'*cnln
(ls) lL:cnUr*"'l-czng,t
!'o:c*At*"'*cmln'
That is, the yy .. ., yn undergo a certain linear transformation when each is
carried around a closed path enclosing a singular point. Such a transforma-
tion arises for any closed path around each of the singular points or com-
bination of singular points, The set of transformations forms a group,3s
which is called the monodromy group of the differential equation, a term
introduced by Hermite.ss
Riemann's approach to obtaining the character of solutions in the
neighborhood ofsingular points appeared in his paper of lB57 " Beitrdge zur
Theorie der durch die Gauss'sche Reihe F(c, p,7, r) darstellbaren Func-
tionen." 3? The hypergeometric differential equation, as Gauss knew, has
three singular points, 0, l, and co. Now Riemann showed that for complex.r,
to obtain conclusions about the behavior of the particular solutions around
singular points of the second order equation, one does not need to know the
differential equation itself but rather how two independent solutions behave
as the independent variable traces closed paths around the three singular
points. That is, we must know the transformations
ll: cnlt * cn!2, lL: czfl * czzlz
for each singular point.

Thus Riemann's idea in treating functions defined by differential
equations was to derive the properties of the functions from a knowledge of
the monodromy group. His 1857 paper dealt with the hypergeometric
differential equation but his plan was to treat zth-order linear ordinary
differential equations with algebraic coefficients. In a fragment written in
I857 but not published until his collected works appeared in I876,38 Riemann
considered more general equations than the second order with three singular
points. He accordingly assumes he has z functions uniform, finite, and
continuous except at certain arbitrarily assigned points (the singular points)
and undergoing an arbitrarily assigned linear substitution when z describes
a closed circuit around such a point. He then shows that such a system of
35. By Riemann's time the algebraic notion ofa group wris known. It will be introduced
in this book in Chap. 31. However, all that one needs to know here is that the application
of two successive transformations is a transformation ofthe set and that the inverse ofeach
transformation belongs to the set.
36. Conp. Rend.,32, 1851, 458-61 = CEuares, l, 27G-80.
37. Werke, 67-83.
38. Werke, 379-90.
724 ORDTNARY DIFFERENTTAL EQUATTONS ISOO-I9OO
functions will satisfy an zth-order linear differential equation. But he does

not prove that the branch-points (singular points) and the substitutions may
be chosen arbitrarily. His work here was incomplete and he left open a
problem known as the Riemann problem: Given zn points ar, . . . , a^ in the
complex plane with each of which is associated a linear transformation of
the form (15), to prove on the basis of elementary assumptions about the
behavior of the monodromy group associated with these singular points (so far
as such behavior is not already determined) that a class offunctionsyr, . . ., yn
is determined which satisfy a linear zth-order differential equation with the
given a1 as singular (branch) points and such that when z traverses a closed
path around a, the y,'s undergo the linear transformation associated with a,.
Guided by Riemann's 1857 paper on the hypergeometric equation the
work on singularities was carried further by Fuchs. Beginning in 1865,3s
Fuchs and his students took up nth-order differential equations whereas
Riemann had published only on Gauss's hypergeometric differential
equation. Fuchs did not follow Riemann's approach but worked directly
with the differential equation. Fuchs also brought not only linear differential
equations but the entire theory of differential equations generally into the
domain of complex function theory.
In the papers mentioned above Fuchs gave his major work on ordinary
differential equations. He starts with the linear differential equation of the
zth order whose coefficients are rational functions of*. By a carelul examina-
tion of the convergence of the series which formally satisfy the equation he
finds that the singular points of the equation are fixed, that is, independent
of the constants of integration, and can be found before integrating because
they are the poles of the coefficients of the differential equation.
He then shows that a fundamental system of solutions undergoes a
linear transformation with constant coefficients when the independent
variable z describes a circuit enclosing a singular point. From this behavior
of the solutions he derives expressions for them valid in a circular region
surrounding that point and extending to the next singular point. He thus
establishes the existence of systems of n functions uniform, finite, and con-
tinuous except in the vicinity ol certain points and undergoing linear sub-
stitutions with constant coemcients when the variable z describes closed
circuits around these points.
Fuchs then considered what properties a differential equation of the
form (13) must have in order that its solutions at a singular point z: a
have the form
(z - a)"16o * {1 1og (" - o) +... + $11og^ (z - a)1,
where s is some number (which can be further specified) and the {, are
single-valued lunctions in the neighborhood ofz : a which may have poles
39. Jour, far Math.,66, 1866, l2l-60; 68, 1868, 35il-85.
THE THEORY OF SINGULARITIES 725
of finite order. His answer was that a necessary and sufficient condition is
that p,(z) : (z - a)-'P(z), where P(z) is analytic at and in the neighbor-
hood of z : a. Thus Pr(z) has a pole of order one and so on. Such a point
a is called a regular singular point (Fuchs called it a point of determinateness).
Fuchs also studied a more specialized class ofequations of the form (13).
A homogeneous linear equation of this type is said to be of Fuchsian tgpe
when it has at worst regular singular points in the extended complex plane
(including the point at o). In this case the pr(z) must be rational functions
of z. For example, the hypergeometric equation has regular singular points
at z : 0, l, and co.
But the study of integrals of differential equations in the neighborhood
ol given point does not necessarily furnish the integrals themselves. The
a
study was taken as the point of departure lor the investigation of the full
integrals. Since the great researches olFuchs, mathematicians have succeeded
in extending the variety oflinear ordinary differential equations that can be
integrated explicitly. Previously only the nth-order linear equations with
constant coefficients and Legendre's equation
1ax + q"ffi. * A(ax -t b)"-'# + "'+ L(ax + b)fl * *, : o

could be integrated, the latter by the transformation ax + b : d. The new
ones that can be integrated are those with integrals that are uniform (single-
valued) functions of z. One recognizes that the integrals have this ProPerty
by studying the singular points of the differential equation. The general
integrals so obtained are usually new functions.
Beyond general results on the kinds of integrals which special classes of
differential equations can have, there is the series approach to the solutions
at a point z : a where the equation has a regular singular point. If the
origin is such a point then the equation must have the form
:
"* *A + zn-rPlz)# . "'+ zPn-,(z)4* + P,(z)w o,
in which tl,e Pt(z) are analytic at and around z : O. ln this case one can
obtain the z fundamental s6lutions in the form of series about z : 0 and
show that the series converge for some range of z-values. The series are of
the lorm
- : ] ,,.0 *u
a'
and the p and the c, are determinable for each solution. The result is due to
Georg Frobenius (l849-191 7).ao
40. Jour.far Math.,76, 187+,214-35 = Ges. Abh., l, 8'[-105.
726 oRDTNARY DTFFERENTTAL EeuATroNs rEoo-rgoo
The Riemann problem was also taken up during the latter part of the
nineteenth century, but unsuccessfully until Hilbert in I90541 and Oliver D.
Kellogg (1878-1932),42 with the help of the theory ol integral equations,
which was developed in the meantime, gave the first complete solution. They
showed that the generating transformation of the monodromy group can be
prescribed arbitrarily.
6. Automorphic Functions
The theory of solutions of linear differential equations was tackled next by
Poincar6 and Felix Klein. The subject they introduced is called automorphic
functions, which, though important for various other applications, play a
major role in the theory of differential equations.
Henri Poincard (1854-1912) was a professor at the Sorbonne. His
publications, almost as numerous as Euler's and Cauchy's, cover a wide
range of mathematics and mathematical physics. His physical researches,
which we shall not have occasion to discuss, included capillary attraction,
elasticity, potential theory, hydrodynamics, the propagation of heat,
electriciry, optics, electromagnetic theory, relativity, and above all, celestial
mechanics. Poincard had penetrating insight, and in every problem he
studied he brought out its essential character. He focused sharply on a
problem and examined it minutely. He also believed in a qualitative study
of all aspects of a problem.
Automorphic functions are generalizations of the circular, hyperbolic,
elliptic, and other functions of elementary analysis. The function sin z is
unchanged in value if z is replaced by z + 2m, where m is any integer. One
can also say that the function is unaltered in value if z is subjected to any
transformation of the group z' : z * 2mtr. The hyperbolic lunction sinh z
is unchanged in value if z be subjected to any transformation of the group
z' : z * 2tmi. An elliptic function remains invariant in value under
transformations of the group z' : z + m@ + m'a' where <rr and <a' are the
periods of the function. All ofthese groups are discontinuous (a term intro-
duced by Poincar6); that is, all the transforms of any point under the
transformations of the group are finite in number in any closed bounded
domain.
The term automorphic function is now used to cover functions that are
invariant under the group of transformations
(16)
, az+b
cz+d
41, Proc. Third Internat. Math. Cong., 1905, 233-40; and Nachri.chhn Kdnig. Gu. der Wiss. zu
GAU., 1905,307-88. Atso in D. Hilbert, Grundzilge einer allgemeinen Theorie der liwaren
Integralglci.chungen, t 9 I 2, Chelsea (reprint), I 953, 8 l-l 08.
42. Math. Ann.,60, 1905, 42.+-33.
AtrroMoRPHrc FUNCTIONS 727
where a, b, c, and d may be real or complex numbers, and ad - bc : l, or

under some subgroup of this group. Moreover the group must be discon-
tinuous in any finite part of the complex plane.
The earliest. automorphic functions to be studied were the elliptic
modular functions. These functions are invariant under the modular group,
which is that subgroup of (16) wherein a, b, c, and d are real integers and
ad - bc : 1, or under some subgroup of this group. These elliptic modular
functions derive from the elliptic functions. We shall not pursue them here
because they do not bear on the basic theory of differential equations.
More general automorphic functions were introduced to study linear
differential equations of the second order
(17)
#, * 0,#, * o,r :0,
where p, and p, were at first rational functions of z. A special case is the
hypergeometric equation
d2q.-y-(a*F*l)drl oF _:n
(18)
dz2' z(l-z) -
dz' z(z-l)''
with the three singular points 0, l, and oo.
Riemann, in his lectures of l85B-59 on the hypergeometric series and
in a posthumous paper of 1867 on minimal surfaces, and Schwarz'8
independently established the following. Let 1, and 12 be any two particular
solutions ofthe equation (17). All solutions can then be expressed as
q: mt11 * nt1s.
When z traverses a closed path around a singular point, r11 and r2, go over
into
f1 : aq * b12, \Z: ab * dns
and by letting z traverse closed paths around all the singular points one
obtains a whole group of such linear transformations, which is the monodromy
group of the differential equation.
Now let ((z) : nrllr. The quotient ( as z traverses a closed path is
transformed to
al+b
(le) ,- _ rt+d
From (17) we find that ( satisfies the differential equation
(20)
tr -;ff) :2Pz-|n-n.
43. Jour. fir Math., 75, 1873, 292-335 = Ces. Abh.,2, 2ll-59.
728 oRDTNARY DTFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS IBOO-I9OO
Figure 29. I
If we take for the p1 and pzir, ( 17) the particular lunctions in (18) we obtain
-i([Y :++ * aJl,

(2r) *r!a=*r-
{ _ .1, - ^' ',
where 12 : | - y2, t' : (y -
" - F)', y' : (" - B)2, and )t, p., v are
taken positive (", F, y are real) . The class of translormations ( 19) is the
monodromy group of the differential equation (21).
Then Riemann and Schwarz showed that every particular solution ((z)
of the equation (21), when l, pc, and v are real, is a conformal mapping of
the upper half of the z-plane (Fig. 29.1) into a curvilinear triangle with
circular arcs in the (-plane whose angles are ltr, y,r, ar..d wr.
In the ofa domain bounded by three arcs ofcircles, if the angles of
case
the triangle satisfy certain conditions, the inverse function to ( : ((z) is an
automorphic function z : 6(q whose entire domain of existence is a half-
plane or a circle. This function remains invariant under transformation of (
by elements of the group of linear transformations (19), which carty any
curvilinear triangle of the form shown into another. The given "circular"
triangle is the fundamental domain of the group. Under the group of trans-
formations this domain is carried into analogous triangles whose union
covers the half-plane or circle. The circular triangle is the analogue of the
parallelogram in the case of elliptic functions.
The work of Poincar6 and Klein carries on from this point. Klein did
some basic work on automorphic functions before I BB0. Then during the
years ISBI-82 he worked with Poincar6, who had also done previous work
on the subject after his attention had been drawn to it by the above-
described work of Fuchs. By 1BB4 Poincard published five major papers on
automorphic functions in the first five volumes of the Acta Mathematica.
When the first of these was published in the first volume of the new Acta
Mathematica, Kronecker warned the editor, Mittag-Leffier, that this im-
mature and obscure article would kill the journal'
Guided by the theory ofelliptic functions, Poincar€ invented a new class
of automorphic functions.aa This class was obtained by considering the
44. Acta Math' l, 1882' l-62 and 191-294 : CEw)res,2, 108-68, 169-257.
AUTOMORPHIC FUNCTIONS 729
inverse function of the ratio of two linearly independent solutions ol the

equation
drrl_ dn
z)1 :
7., ' P(*' ") -* + Q@'
o'
where zr and z are connected by a polynomial equation i@, ") :0 and P

and Q are rational functions. This is the class ol Fuchsian automorphic
functions and consists of uniform (single-valued) meromorphic functions
within a circle (called the fundamental circle) which are invariant under the
class of linear translormations of the form
az + b
(22) cz a'
where a, b, c, and, d are rea'! and ad - 6c : 1. These transformations, which
leave the circle and its interior invariant, form a group called the Fuchsian
group. Schwarz's function {(() constitutes the simplest example of a Fuchsian
iunction. Thus Poincard demonstrated the existence ol a class of auto-
morphic functions more general than the elliptic modular functions'as
Poincar6's construction of automorphic functions (in the second paper
of 1BB2) was based on his theta series. Let the transformations ofthe group
(22) be
, arz+ b1
(23) - crztdi
Let 27, 22,. . . be the transforms of z under the various transformations of
the group. Let H(z) be a rational function (aside from other minor con-
ditions). Then Poincar6's theta series is the function
(24) eA) : > (c,z + d,)-2^H(2,), m > l.
One can show that O(rt) : Qp + d,)2^0(z). Now let 0r(z) and 0r(z) be
two theta series with the same m. These series are not only uniform functions
but entire. Then
(25) F(z) :
is an automorphic function ofthe group (23). Poincard called the series (24)
a theta-fuchsian series or a theta-kleinian series according as the grouP to
which it belongs is Fuchsian or Kleinian (the latter will be described in a
moment).
45. In this work on Fuchsian groups Poincar6 used non-Euclidean Seometry (Chap' 36)
and showed that the study of Fuchsian groups reduces to that of the translation group of
Lobatchevskian geometry.
73O ORDTNARY DTFFERENTTAL EqUATTONS rBOO-rgOO
Fuchsian functions are of two kinds, one existing in the entire plane, the
other existing only in the interior of the fundamental circle. The inverse
function ofa Fuchsian function is, as we saw above, the ratio of two integrals
of a second order linear differential equation with algebraic coefficients.
Such an equation, which Poincar6 called a Fuchsian equation, can be
integrated by means of Fuchsian functions.
Then Poincar6a6 extended the group of transformations (22) to com-
plex coefficients and considered several types of such groups, which he
named Kleinian. We must be content here to note that a group is Kleinian
if, essentially, it is not finite and not Fuchsian but, of course, is of the form
(22) and, discontinuous in any part of the complex plane. For these Kleinian
groups Poincard obtained new automorphic functions, that is, functions
invariant under the Kleinian groups, which he called Kleinian functions.
These functions have properties analogous to the Fuchsian ones; however,
the fundamental region for the new functions is more complicated than a
circle. Incidentally, Klein had considered Fuchsian functions while Lazarus
Fuchs had not. Klein therefore protested to Poincar6. Poincar€ responded by
naming the next class of automorphic functions that he discovered Kleinian
because, as someone wryly observed, they had never been considered by
Klein.
Then Poincar6 showed how to express the integrals of zth-order linear
equations with algebraic coefficients having only regular singular points with
the aid of the Kleinian functions. Thus this entire class of linear differential
equations is solved by the use of these new transcendental functions of
Poincar6.
7. Hill's Work on Perindic Solutions of Linear Equations

While the theory of automorphic functions was being created, the work in
astronomy stimulated interest in a second order ordinary differential equa-
tion somewhat more general than Mathieu's equation. Since the z-body
problem was not solvable explicitly and only complicated series solutions
were at all available, the mathematicians turned to culling periodic solutions.
The importance of periodic solutions stems from the problem of the
stability of a planetary or satellite orbit. If a planet is displaced slightly
from its orbit and given a small velocity will it then oscillate about its orbit
and perhaps return to the orbit after a time, or will it depart from the orbit ?
In the former case the orbit is stable, and in the Iatter unstable. Thus the
question of whether the primary motion of the planets or any irregularities
in the motions are periodic is vital.
As we know (Chap. 21, sec. 7), Lagrange had found special periodic
solutions in the problem of three bodies. No new periodic solutions of the
46. Acta Moth.,3, 1883, 49-92; 4, 1884,201-312 : (Euules, 2, 258-99, 300-401.
PERTODTC SOLUTIONS OF LINEAR EqUATTONS 73r
three-body problem were found until George William Hill (lB3B-1914)' the
first great American mathematician, did his work on lunar theory. In 1877
Hill published privately a remarkably original paper on the motion of the
moon's perigee.a? He also published a very important paper on the motion
of the moon in tine American Journal oJ Matfumatics.a8 His work founded the
mathematical theory ol homogeneous linear differential equations with
periodic coemcients.
Hill's first fundamental idea (in his lB77 paper) was to determine a
periodic solution of the differential equations for the motion of the moon
that approximated the actual observed motion' He then wrote equations for
variations from this periodic solution that led him to a fourth order system
ol linear differential equations with periodic coefficients. Knowing some
integrals, he was able to reduce his fourth order system to a single linear
differential equation of the second order
(26)
ff * ,p1*: o,
with d(l) periodic of period z'and even. The form of Hill's equation can be
put, by expanding d(t) in a Fourier series, as
(27)
# * rro" * 2q1 cos2t + 2qzcos 4, + " ') : 0.
Hill put ( : ett, q -n : qo arrd wrote (27) as
(28)
ff * -)uE" :0.
He then let
,= -,,
where ;r, and D; were to be determined. By substituting this value of x in
(28) and setting the coefficients of each power of ( equal to 0 he obtained
the doubly infinite system of linear equations
...1-2)b-, - 8i-t - bbo - qsbt - Sabz - "' : 0

...- 4tb-z + [-l]r-1 - Srbo - gzbt - Qzbz - " ': 0
...- 7zb-z'Qtb-t + [0]r0 - 7tb, - 7zbz-"':O
.-.- Qsb-z - Izb-r - 7Jo* [l]0, - q1b2-"':O
... - 7tb-z - Qsb-t - Qzbo - qrbl + l2)b2 - "' : 0
47. This was reprinted in Acta Malh.,8, 1886, l-36 : Coll. Malh' Wo*s, 1,243-70'
48. Amer. Jour. i1f Math.,l, 1878, 5-26, 129-47,245-60 : Coll' Math' Work, l,2U-335'
732 oRDTNARY DIFFERENTTAL EqUATIONS rBOO-I9OO
where
Ljl:0,+2j),-qo.
Hill set the determinant of the coefficients of the unknown D, equal to 0.
He first determined the properties of the infinitely many solutions for pr and
gave explicit formulas for determining the /r. With these values olg. he then
solved the system of an infinite number of linear homogeneous equations in
the infinite number of b, for the ratio of the D, to 6o. Hill did show that the
second order differential equation has a periodic solution and that the
motion of the moon's perigee is periodic.
Hill's work was ridiculed until Poincar6ae proved the convergence of
the procedure and thereby put the theory of infinite determinants and
infinite systems of linear equations on its feet. Poincar6's attention to and
completion of Hill's efforts gave prominence to Hill and the subjects involved.
8. Nonlinear Dffirential Equations: The Qualitatiae Theory

A new approach to the search for periodic solutions of the differential
equations governing planetary motion and the stability of planetary and
satellite orbits was initiated by Poincar6 under the stimulus of Hill's work.
Because the relevant equations are nonlinear, Poincard took up this class.
Nonlinear ordinary differential equations had appeared practically from the
beginnings ofthe subject as, for example, in the Riccati equation (Chap. 2I,
sec. 4), the pendulum equation, and the Euler equations of the calculus of
variations (Chap. 24, sec. 2). No general methods of solving nonlinear
equations had been developed.
In view of the fact that the equations for the motion of even three
bodies cannot be solved explicitly in terms of known functions, the problem
of stability cannot be solved by examining the solution. Poincar6 therefore
sought methods by which the problem could be answered by examining the
differential equations themselves. The theory he initiated he called the
qualitative theory of differential equations. It was presented in four papers
all under substantially the same title, " M6moire sur les courbes ddfinies par
une dquation diff6rentielle." 50 The questions he sought to answer were
stated by him in these words : " Does the moving point describe a closed
curve ? Does it always remain in the interior of a certain portion of the
plane? In other words, and speaking in the language of astronomy, we have
inquired whether the orbit is stable or unstable."
:
49. Bult. Soc. Math. de France, 13, 1885, l9-2?; 14, 1886, 77-90 CEuutes,5, 85-94,
95-t 07.
50. Jour. de Math., (3), 7, l8Sl, 375422;8, 1882, 251-96; (4), l, 1885, 167-2*4;2, 1886,
l5l-217 : CEuares, 1,3-84, 90-161, 167-221.
NONLINEAR: THE QUALITATTVE THEORY 733
29.2
Poincard started with nonlinear equations of the form
(2e) *:#3,
where P and Q are analytic in x andy. This form was chosen partly because
some problems of planetary motion led to it and partly because it was the
simplest mathematical type with which to commence the kind of investiga-
tion Poincar6 had in mind. The solution of (29) is of the form;f(r, !) : O,
and this equation is said to define a system of trajectories. In place of
.f @,il : 0 one can consider the parametric form *
: x(t), y : y(t).
In the analysis of the kinds ofsolutions equation (29) can have, Poincar6
found that the singular points of the differential equation (the Points at
which P and Q both vanish) play a key role. These singular points are
undetermined or irregular in Fuchs's sense. Here Poincar6 took up earlier
work by Briot and Bouquet (sec. 5) but limited himself to real values and to
studying the behavior of the entire solution rather than just in the neigh-
borhood ofthe singular points. He distinguished four types ofsingular points
and described the behavior of solutions around such points.
The first type of singular point is the focus (foyer), the origin in Figure
29.2, and the solution spirals around and approaches the origin as runs
from -o to o. This type of solution is considered stable. The second kind
'
of singular point is the saddle point (col). It is the origin of Figure 29'3 and
the trajectories approach this point and then depart from it. The lines ll'
and BB' are the asymPtotes of the trajectories. The motion is unstable'
The third type of singular point, called a node (naud), is a point where an
infinity ofsolutions cross, and the fourth, called a center, is one around which
closed trajectories exist, one enclosing the other and all enclosing the center.
734 oRDTNARY DIFFERENTTAL EQUATTONS rBOO-r9OO
Among many results, Poincar€ found that there can be closed curves
which do not towh any of the curves satisfying the differential equation. He
called these closed curves cycles without contact. A curve satisfying the
diflerential equation cannot meet such a cycle in more than one point, and
so ifit crosses the cycle it cannot re-cross it. Such a curve, if it is an orbit ofa
plianet, represents unstable motion.
Beyond cycles without contact there are closed curves that Poincar6
cdled limit cycles. These are closed curves which satisfy the differential
equation and which other solutions approach asymptotically, that is,
without ever reaching the limit cycle. The approach can be from without
or within the limit cycle C (Fig. 29.4). For some differential equations of the
type (29) he determined the limit cycles and the regions in which they exist.
In the case of limit cycles the trajectories approach a periodic curve, and the
motion is again stable. If, however, the direction of the motions were away
from the limit cycle the motion outside would be unstable and the motion
inside would be a contracting spiral.
In the third of his papers on this subject, Poincar6 studied first order
equations of higher degree and of the form F(r,y,S') : 0, where F is a
polynomial in x, g, and, y'. To study these equations Poincar6 regarded x, y,
and g' as three Cartesian coordinates and considered the surf,ace defined by
the diferential equation. If this surface has genus 0 (form ofa sphere), then
the integral curves have the same properties as in the case of first degree
differential equations. For other genuses the results on integral curves can be
quite different. Thus for a torus many new circumstances arise. Poincard did
not complete this study. In the fourth paper (1886) he studied second order
equations and obtained some results analogous to those for first order
equations.
While continuing his work on the types of solutions of the differential
equation (29), Poincard considered a more general theory directed to the
NONLTNEAR: THE qUALITATM THEORY 735
three-body problem ol astronomy. In a prize paper, "Sur le probltme de

trois corps et les iquations de la dynamieue," 5l he considered the system of
differential equations
(30)
*: *'r*""''xn'P)' i:1,2,...,n.
He developed the X, in powers of the small parameter p and, supposing that
the system had for p : 0 a known periodic solution
4: 6lt), i:1,2,...,n
of period 7, he proposed to find the periodic solution of the system vihich
for p : 0 reduces to the {,(l). The existence of periodic solutions for the
three-body problem had been discovered by Hill, and Poincar€ made use of
this fact.
The details of Poincard's work are too specialized to consider here' He
first generalized earlier work of Cauchy on solutions of systems of ordinary
differential equations wherein the latter had used his calcul dts limitts.
Poincard then demonstrated the existence of the periodic solutions he sought
and applied what he learned to the study of periodic solutions ofthe three-
body problem for the case where the masses of two of the bodies (but not
that of the sun) are small. Thus one obtains such solutions by supposing
that the two small masses move in concentric circles about the sun and are
in the same plane. One can obtain others by supposing that for /, : 0 the
orbits are ellipses and that their periods are commensurable. With these
solutions, and by using the theory he had developed for the system, he
obtained other periodic solutions. In sum he showed that there is an infinity
of initial positions and initial velocities such that the mutual distaaces of the
three bodies are periodic functions ofthe time. (Such solutions are also called
periodic.)
Poincard in this paper of 1890 drew many other conclusions about
periodic and almost periodic solutions of the system (30). Among them is the
very notable discovery for such a system of a new class ofsolutions previously
unknown. These he called asymptotic solutions. There are two kinds. In the
first the solution approaches the periodic solution asymptotically as I
approaches - @ or as I approaches + o. The second kind consists ofdoubly
asymptotic solutions, that is, solutions that approach a periodic solution as I
approaches -o and *o. There is an infinity of such doubly asymptotic
solutions. All of the results in this paper of 1890 and many others can be
found also in Poincari's Les Mithodes nouuelles de la muanique cileste.62
Poincard's work on the problem of stability ofthe solar system was only
partially successful. The stability is still an open question. As a matter of
51. Acta Math., 13, 1890, l-270 : (Euares, 7,262479.
52. Three volumes, 1892-99.
n6 oRDTNARY DIFFERENTTAL EQUATIONS r BOO-I9OO
Figure 29.5 1: +l
fact so is the question of whether the orbit of the moon is stable; most
scientists today believe it is not.
The stability of the solutions of (29) can be analyzed by means of what
is called the characteristic equation, namely,
(31)
- A P*(xo,!i I :
lQ*@o,ao) o.
I Q,@o,sd Pu@o,vs) - tl
where (xo, yo) is a singular point of (29). The stability in the neighborhood
of (*o,yo), according to a theorem of the distinguished Russian mathe-
matician Alexander Liapounofl (1857-1918) depends Lrpon the roots of this
characteristic equation.se The analysis of possible cases is detailed and
includes many more types than those given in the discussion above of
Poincari's work. The basic result, according to Liapounoff, whose work on
stability problems continued into the early years of this century, is that the
solutions are stable in the neighborhood of a singular point when and only
when the roots of the equation (31) in f have negative real parts.
The qualitative study ofnonlinear equations was advanced by Poincar6's
introduction of topological arguments (in the first of the four papers in the
Journal de Mathimatiqrcs). To describe the nature of a singular point he
introduced the notion of an index. Consider a singular point Po and a simple
closed curve C surrounding it. At each intersection ofC with the solutions of
(32)
dg:
dx
there is a direction angle of the trajectory, which we shall denote by { and

which can have any value from 0 to 2r radians. If a point now moves in a
counterclockwise direction around C (Fig. 29.5), the angle { will vary;
and after completion ol the circuit around C, / will have the value 2ttl
where 1 is an integer or zero (since the direction angle of the trajectories has
53. Aan. Fac. Sci. de Toulouse, (2), 9, 1907, 203-474; originally published in Russian in
1892.
NONLINEAR: THE QUALITATIVE THEORY ?37
returned to its original value). The quantity 1is the index of the curve. It
can be proved that the index ofa closed curve that contains several singular-
ities is the algebraic sum of their indices. The index of a closed trajectory is
* I and conversely.
The nature of the trajectories can be determined by the characteristic
equation, and so the index .I of a curve should be determinable by knowing
just the differential equation. One can prove that
,: *,1"a("*r""fi) : +1" -, + q,-'

PdQ - QdP
where the path of integration is the closed curve C.

After Poincard, the most significant work on solutions of equations of
the form (32) is due to Ivar Bendixson (1861-1935). One of his major
results 54 provides a criterion by means of which, in certain regions, one can
show that no closed trajectory exists: Let D be a region in which AQ|Ax +
0Pl0y has the same sign. Then the equation (32) has no periodic solution
in D.
The theorem now named after Poincar6 and Bendixson, which is in the
latter's 1901 paper, provides a positive criterion lor the existence ofa periodic
solution ol (32). If P and Q are defined and regular in -o < x, ! I @
and il as t approaches oo a solution x(t), y(t) remains within a bounded
region of the (x,y)-plane without approaching singular points, then there
exists at least one clcsed solution curve of the differential equation.
The study ofnonlinear equations that Poincard launched was broadened
in various directions. One more topic begun in the nineteenth century will
be mentioned. The linear differential equations studied by Fuchs have the
property that the singular points are fi-xed and are, in fact, determined by the
coefficients of the diflerential equation. In the case of nonlinear equations
the singular points may vary with the initial conditions and are called
movable singular points. Thus the equation y' + !2: 0 has the general
solution y : ll@ - c) where c is arbitrary. The location of the singularity
in the solution depends on the value of e. This phenomenon of movable
singular points was discovered by Fuchs.ss The study of movable singular
points and of nonlinear second order equations with and without such
singular points was taken up by many men, notably by Paul Painlevd
(1863-1933). One interesting feature is that many of the types of second
order equations of the form y" :-f(x,y,y') require for their solution new
types of transcendental functions now called Painlev€ transcendents.66
The interest in nonlinear equations has become strong in the twentieth
century. The applications have moved from astronomy to problems of
54. Acta Math., 24, 190t, l-88.
55. Si.tzungsber, Akad. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1884, 699-710 = Wctkc,2,364 tr.
56. Com!. Rend., 143, 1906, llll-17.
ng oRDTNARY DIFFERENTTAL EQUATToNS r8oo-I9oo
communications, servomechanisms, automatic control systems, and elec-

tronics. The study has also moved from the qualitative stage to quantitative
investigations.
BibliograplA
Acta Matlumatica, Vol. 38, 1921. This entire volume is devoted to articles on
Poincard's work by various leading mathematicians.
Bochcr, M. : " Randwertaufgaben bei gewiihnlichen Differentialgleichungen,"
Encgk. dd Math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner, 1899-1916, 1I, A7a' 43743.
.............._: *norrnd,ry Problems in One Dimension," Intemat. Cong. of Math., Proc.,
Cambridge, 1912, l, 163-95.
BurLhardt, H.: " Entwicklungen nach oscillirenden Functionen und Integration
der Differentialgleichungen der mathematischen Physik," Jahres, d.er Deut.
Math.-Vcrcin., 10, 1908, l-1804.
Cauchn A.L.; (Euarcs compbtzs, (l), Vols.4,7, and 10, Gauthier-Villars, 1884' 1892,
and 1897.
Craig,T.: "Some of the Developments in the Theory of Ordinary Differential
Equations Between 1878 and 1893," lY. f. Math. Soc. Bull-,2, 1893, ll9-34.
Fuchs, Lazarus : Gesammelte matlumali.sclu Werk, 3 vols., 190't-09, Georg Olms
(reprint), 1970.
Heine, Eduard : Handbtuh dcr Kugelfunktinrun, 2 vols., I878-B l, Physica Verlag
(reprint), 1961.
Hilb, E. : " Lineare Differentialgleichungen im komplexen Gebiet," Emyk, der
Math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner, 1899-1916, II' 85.
" Nichtlineare Differentialgleichungen," Enryk' dtr Math. Wi.ss., B. G.
Teubner, 1899-1916, II, 86.
Hill, George rN.: Colhcted Mathcmatical Works,4 vols., 1905, Johnson Reprint Corp.,
1965.
Klein, Felix: Vmlcsungen nbcr db Entwicklung dtr Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert,
Vol. I, Chelsea (reprint), 1950.
Gcsammeltc matlumatisclu Abhandlungen, Jtlius Springer, 1923, Vol. 3.
Painlev6, P.: " Le Probldme moderne de l'intdgration des 6quations diff6rentielles,"
-z Thhd Intcrnat. Math. Cong. in Heidelberg, 1904, 86-99, B. G. Teubner, 1905.
" Gew6hnliche Differentialgleichungen, Existenz der Ltisungen," Ency,t.
det Math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner, 1899-1916, ll, A4a.
Poincard, Henri: (Euares, l,
-i 2, and 5, Gauthier-Villars, 1928, 1916, and 1960.
Riemann, Bernhard: Gesammelte mathematische Werlce,2nd ed., 1892, Dover (reprint),
1953.
Schlesinger, L. : " Bericht iiber die Entwickelung der Theorie der linearen Differen-
tialgleichungen seit 1865," Jahres. der Deut, Math.-Verein., 18, 1909, 133-266.
Wangerin, A.: " Theorie der Kugelfunktionen und der verwandten Funktionen,"
Encgk. der Malh. Wiss., B. G. Teubner, 1899 1916, II, Al0.
Wirtinger, W.: " Riemanns Vorlesungen [ber die hypergeometrische Reihe und
ihre Bedeutung ,- Thi,rd Internat. Math. Cong. in Hei.delberg, 1904, B. G.
Teubner, 1905, 12l-39.
3o
The Calculus of Variations in the
Nineteenth Century
Although to penetrate into the intimate mysteries of nature

and thence to learn the true causes of phenomena is not
allowed to us, nevertheless it can happen that a certain
fictive hypothesis may suffice for explaining many phenomena.
LEONHARD EULER
l. Introduction
As we have seen, the calculus of variations was founded in the eighteenth
century chiefly by Euler and Lagrange. Beyond mathematical and physical
problems of various sorts there was one leading motivation for the study,
namely, the Principle of Least Action, which in the hands of Maupertuis,
Euler, and Lagrange became a leading principle of mathematical physics.
The nineteenth-century men contlnued the work on least action and the
greatest stimulus to the calculus of variations in the first half of the century
came from this direction. Physically, the interest was in the science of
mechanics and particularly in problems of astronomy.
2. Mathematical Physics and the Calculus of Variations

Lagrange's successful formulation of the laws of dynamics in terms of his
Principle of Least Action suggested that the idea should be applicable to
other branches of physics. Lagrange 1 gave a minimum principle for fluid
dynamics (applicable to compressible and incompressible fluids) from which
he derived Euler's equations for fluid dynamics (Chap. 22, sec. 8) and indeed
he boasted that a minimum principle governed this field as it did the motion
of particles and rigid bodies. Many problems of elasticity also were solved
by the calculus of variations in the early part of the nineteenth century by
Poisson, Sophie Germain, Cauchy, and others, and this work too helped to
l. Misc. Taur.,22, 1760161,196-298, pub. 1762 : (Euurcs, l, 36H68.
739
740 THE cALcuLUs oF vARrATroNs r8oo-rgoo
keep the subject active, but no major new mathematical ideas of the calculus
of variations are to be noted in this area or in Gauss's famous contribution
to mechanics, The Principle of Least Constraint.2
The first new point worth noting is due to Poisson. Using Lagrange's
generalized coordinates, he followed up immediately two papers by
Lagrange and starts with3 Lagrange's equations (Chap. 24, sec. 5)
(,) *(#,) - ff,. {*: o, i:1,2,...,n.

Here the kinetic energy T expressed in generalized coordinates is
2T : 27,, -, as Q1Q;, V is the potential energy, and T and V are independent
of t. He sets Z : T - V. Where Z depends only on the (r and not on the {1
he can write
(2) '*,:#;
so that the equations of motion read
_d t-
(3)
il
taL
\a41 -ff,:o' i:t'2'"''n'
He also introduces
(4)
AL AT
: dA,:
?, uq,'
and so from (3) he has
(5) i,:#,, i:1,2,"',n.

The p, are momentum components when the qi are rectangular coordinates
of position. Equation (5) is a step in the direction we shall now look into.
The big change in the formulation of least action principles which is
important for the calculus of variations and for ordinary and partial dif-
ferential equations was made by William R. Hamilton. Hamilton came to
dynamics through optics. His goal in optics was to fashion a deductive
mathematical structure in the manner of Lagrange's treatment of mechanics.
Hamilton too started with a least action principle and was to deduce
new ones. However, his attitude toward such principles was profoundly
different from that of Maupertuis, Euler, and Lagrange. In a paper published
in the Dublin Unioersitg Reaieua he says, " But although the law olleast action
has thus attained a rank among the highest theorems of physics, yet its
pretensions to a cosmological necessity, on the ground of economy in the
2. Jour. fiir Math., 4, 1829, 232-35 : Werke, 5, 23-28.

3. Jour. de t Ecole Poly.,8, 1809,266-344.
4. 1833, 795-826 : Math. PaP$s, 1,3ll-32.
MECHANTCS AND TrrE CALCULUS OF VARIATIONS 741
universe, are now generally rejected. And the rejection appears just, for this,
among other reasons, that the quantity Pretended to be economized is in fact
often lavishly expended." Because in some phenomena of nature, even simPle
ones, the action is maximized, Hamilton preferred to speak of a principle of
stationary action.
In a series of papers of the period lB24 to lB32 Hamilton developed his
mathematical theory ofoptics and then carried over ideas he had introduced
there to mechanics. He wrote two basic papers.s It is the second of these which
is more pertinent. Here he introduces the action integral, namely, the time
integral of the difference between kinetic and potential energies
(6) t:
!::,',"'
(r v) dt. -
The quantity T - V is called the Lagrangian function though it was
introduced by Poisson; Pl standsfor q!, ql, . . ., qLn, and P 2for 91", 1LD, . . ., 4?'.
Now Hamilton generalizes the principle of Euler and Lagrange by allowing
comparison paths that are not restricted except that the motion along them
must start at PL at time 11 and end at P2 at time tr. Also, the law of con-
servation of energy need not hold whereas in the Euler-Lagrange principle
conservation of energy is presupposed, and as a consequence the time
required by an object to traverse any one of the comparison paths differs
from the time taken to traverse the actual path.
The Hamiltonian principle of least action asserts that the actual motion
is the one that makes the action stationary. For conservative systems' that is,
where the components of force are derivable from a potential that is a
function of position only, 7 + tr: const. Hence 7 - V :27 - const.
and so Hamilton's principle reduces to Lagrange's, but, as noted, Hamilton's
principle also holds for nonconservative systems. Also the potential e\ergy V
can be a function of time and even of the velocities; that is, in generalized
coordinates V : V(qt, . . ., Qo, 4t. . ., 8", t).
If, setting T - V equial to L,we write the action integral (6) as
(7) , :
L(q,,- . ., 8o,8t, - . ., En, t) itt,
/,:'
with the condition that all comparison 4,(t) must have the same given
values at t, and tr, then the problem is to determine the 41 as functions of,
from the condition that the true 4i make the integral stationary. The Euler
equations, which express the condition that the first variation of .S is 0,
become a system of simultaneous second order ordinary differential
equations, namely,
(B)
aL d tal
_l- :0, k:1,2,...,n,
-0q* il\aEk
-
5. Phil. Trans.,1834, Part II,247-308; 1835, Part 1,95-l+4 : Math. Palcrs,2' 103-2ll'
742 TrrE oALCULUS OF VARTATTONS rSOO-I9OO
and the equations are to be solved in tt < t < fr. These equations are still
called the Lagrangian equations of motion even though I is now a different
function. The choice of coordinate system is arbitrary and usually utilizes
generalized coordinates, This is an essential advantage of variational
principles.
Now introduce (see (a))
?, : ui,'
AL
Then the equations (B) become

.aL
O,: E,'
The introduction of thelD, as a new set ofindependent variables is credited to
Hamilton though it was first done by Poisson. We now have the symmetrical
sptem of differential equations
(s) aL i,:?,
: aq,, i:1,2,...,n.
?, aqt
This is a system of 2n first order ordinary differential equations in p, and itv

However, t};le jt arc dprldt.
In his second (1835) paper Hamilton simplifies this system of equations.
IIe introduces a new function I/ which is defined by
.' s-1
(10) H(?uq"t): -L+ )?fir
This function is physically the total energy' for the summation can be shown
to be equal to 2 7. The transformation from I to 11 is called a Legendre
transformation because it was used by Legendre in his work on ordinary
differential equations. That I/ is a function ol the p1, qr, and t, whereas
L : T - V is a function of the 41, 8r, and' t, results from the fact that since
h: 0ll0h we can solve for the fs and substitute in I.
With (10) the differential equations of motion (9) can be shown to take
the form
(l l) .aH
: -dl,' .aH
bt: --;-, 1:1,2,...rn,
9' o4t
The function 11 is assumed to be known in the application to physical

problems. These equations are a system of2n first order ordinary differential
equations in ttre 2n dependent variables y', and g, as functions .of I, whereas
Lagrange's equations (l) are a system of z second order equations in the
qr(t). Later Jacobi called Hamilton's equations the canonical differential
MECTTANTCS AND TrrE CALCULUS OF VARTATTONS 743
equations. They are the variational equations (Euler equations) for the
integral
'
:[:; e v) * : 1," : [{2m, - H(tuo,.o}a,.
This set of equations appears in one of Lagrange's papers of 1809 which

deals with the perturbation theory of mechanical systems. However, whereas
Lagrange did not recognize the basic connection ofthese equations with the
equations of motion, Cauchy in an unpublished paper of I 83l did. Hamilton
in 1835 made these equations the basis of his mechanical investigations.
To use Hamilton's equations of motion it is often possible to express rll in
an appropriate p
arrd q coordinate system so that the system of equations
(1 1) is solvable for the prand qlas functions ofthe time. In particular, ifwe can
choose coordinates so that 11 depends only on the p., the system is solvable.
In a paper of 18370 and in lectures on dynamics of the years 1842 and
1843, which were published in 1866 in the classic Vorlesungen iiber Dgnam*,
Jacobi showed that one can reverse Hamilton's Process. In Hamilton's theory
ifone knows the action S or the Hamiltonian fl one can form the 2z canonical
differential equations and attempt to solve the system. Jacobi's thought was
to try to find coordinates P, and Q, so that llis as simple as possible, and then
the differential equations (11) would be.eaSily integrated. Specifically, he
sought a transformation
Qt : Q,Q" c" t)
(12)
Pt : P/?u q" t)
such that
t
f' ()w, - H(p, t,, o) at : o
goes over by the transformation (12) into
rf E P,e, - K(n,0,,o)a,: o,
and so that the Hamiltonian differential equations become
P,: - N4;
(13) a,: ffi,
where.I((P1, Qr, t) is the new Hamiltonian. This path leads to
K : u(p,, qt, t) * ff {Q,, t,,,),

6. Jour. Jiir Math., 17, 1837, 97-162 : Ges. Werke, +' 57-127 .
744 Tr{E CALCULUS OF VARIATTONS rBOO-I9OO
where O is a new function, called the generating function of the transforma-

tion. Jacobi chose .I( : 0 so that by (13)
0r:0, P, :0,
or Q1 and Pi are constants. Moreover,
(14) a+ff:0,
and it can be shown that
aa
?,: Ai,'
Hence by (14), in view of the variables in fI,
(15) ,(#; *# (e, cu t) : o.

",,)
Since Q3 : O, Qt: .tr, znd so the equation is of first order in Q with the
independent variables gi and ,. With this change equation (15) is the Hamil-
ton-Jacobi partial differential equation for the function O. If this equation
can be solved for a complete O, that is, one containing n atbitraty constants,
the solution would have the form
dl(a1, a2,''', dt, Qt Qz,''', 4o, t)'
Now it is a fact of the Jacobi transformation theory that
o--oaoo,
't-
and that h : Ft, a constant' because P, : 0' Hence one solves the algebraic
equations
'aa:
AQ
-P" i: t'2'"''n
for the 4,. These solutions
Qr : .ft(at, .. ., do, Fy "', Fn, t), i: 1,2, " ', n,

are the solutions of Hamilton's canonical equations. Thus Jacobi had shown
that one can solve the system ofordinary equations (11) by solving the partial
differential equation (I 5). Jacobi himself found the proper O for many
problems of mechanics.
Hamilton's work was tlie culmination of a series of efforts to provide a
broad principle from which the laws of motion of various problems of
MATHEMATICAL EXTENSIONS 745
mechanics could be derived. It inspired efforts to obtain similar variational

principles in other branches ol mathematical physics such as elasticity,
electromagnetic theory, relativity, and quantum theory. The principles that
have been derived, and even Hamilton's principle, are not necessarily more
practical approaches to the solution of particular problems. Rather the
attractiveness of such broad formulations lies in philosophic and aesthetic
interests though scientists no longer infer that the existence of a maximum-
minimum principle is evidence of Godis wisdom and efficiency.
From the standpoint of the history of mathematics the work of Hamilton
andJacobi is significant because it prompted further research not only in the
calculus of variations but also on systems of ordinary differential equations
and first order partial differential equations.
3. Mathematical Extensions of the Calculus d Variations Propet

We may recall that even in the simplest case, maximizing or minimizing the
integral
(16) t : lo f{*,u,u) d*,

the results of Euler and Legendre provided only necessary conditions (Chap.
24). For about filty years after the work of Legendre, mathematicians
explored further the first and second variations but no decisive results were
obtained. In 1837?Jacobi found out how to sharPen Legendre's condition so
that it might yield a sufficient condition. His chief discovery in this con-
nection was the concePt of conjugate point. Let us note first what this is.
Consider the curves which satisfy Euler's (characteristic) equation; such
curves are called extremals. For the basic problem ofthe calculus of varia-
tions, there is a one-parameter family of extremals passing through a given
point l. Suppose now that ,4 is one of the two endpoints between which we
seek a maximizing or minimizing curve. Given any one extremal, the limiting
point of intersection of other extremals as they come closer to that extremal
is the conjugate point to A on that extremal. Another way of putting it is
that we have a family of curves, and this family may have an envelope. The
point of contact of any one extremal and the envelope of the family is the
point conjugate to.zl on that extremal. Then Jacobi's condition is that ify(r)
is an extremal between the endpoints A and' B of the original problem, no
conjugate point must lie on that extremal between A and B or even be B
itself.
Just what this means in a concrete case may be seen from an example.
It can be shown that the parabolic Paths of all trajectories (Fig. 30.1)
7 . Jott. ftr. Math., 17, 1837, 68-82 : Ges. Werke, 4, 39-55.
7+6 THE CALCULUS OF VARTATTONS rBOO-r9OO
Figure 30.1 A
emanating from I with constant velocity tl but with varying angles of fire are
extremals of the problem of minimizing or maximizing the action integral
nfB
i Jno
*'
The problem of minimizing the action between two points ,4 and B does in
general have two solutions, the parabola AA'B and the parabola ABA'.It
is also the case that the family of parabolas through A has an envelope that
touches the two parabolas at A' and, A'.The conjugate Point on AA'B is A"
and the one on ABA' is ,4'. According to Jacobi's condition, the extremal
AA'B could not furnish a maximum or a minimum but the extremal ABA'
could.
Jacobi reconsidered the second variation 6'./ (Chap. 24, sec. 4). If we
writc y * el (*) in place of Lagrange's y * 6y and ifa and D are the abscissas
of I and .B then
(17) E r.:;-z J.fb (r'f," + %tny, + t'T!,!,) bc.
Jacobi showed that
a,t :", ['n,",(t, _ t!), a*,
where z is a solution ofJacobi's accessory equation
(18)
{t"-*r"Y-fiu",,,"):o
and where the partial derivatives are evaluated along an extremal joining the
two endpoints A and B. Now z(r) is required to pass through l. Then all
other points on the extremal y(r) through A and B at which rz(x) vanishes
are the conjugate points of z4 on that extremal. lf u : F#r I B2u, is the
general solution of the accessory equation (lB), then one can show that
u(x) u(a)
;M:;M'
MATIIEMATICAL EXTENSIONS 747
where d is the abscissa of the point u4, is the equation for the abscissas of
all points conjugate to l.
Jacobi also showed that one need not solve the accessory equation.
Since one must solve the Euler equation in any case, lety : y(x, c1, ,2) be the
general solution of that equation, that is, the flamily of extremals. Then zr can
be taken tobe 1ylAcy and z2 to be 0gl0c2.
From his work on conjugate points Jacobi drew two conclusions' The
first was that ilalong the extremal from I to B a conjugate point to 14 occurs
then a maximum or a minimum is impossible. In this conclusion Jacobi was
essentially correct.
On the basis of his considerations of conjugate points Jacobi also con-
cluded that an extremal (a solution of Euler's equation) taken between I and
.B for which;f,,r, > 0 along the curve and for which no conjugate point
exists between A and. B (or at B) furnishes a minimum for the original
integral. The corresponding statement with fr'r, < 0, he asserted' holds for
a maximum. Actually, these sufficient conditions were not cotrect, as we
shall see in a few moments. In this lB37 paper Jacobi stated results and gave
brief indications of proofs. The full proofs of the correct statements were
supplied by later workers.
Aside from the specific value ofJacobi's results for the existence of a
maximizing or minimizing function, his work made clear that Progress in the
calculus of variations could not be guided by the theory of maxima and
minima of the ordinary calculus.
For thirty-five years both ofJacobi's conclusions were accepted as cor-
rect. During this period the paPers on the subject were imprecise in statement
and dubious in proof; problems were not sharply ficrmulated and all sors of
errors were made. Then Weierstrass undertook work on the calculus of
variations. He presented his material in his lectures at Berlin in 1872 but did
not publish it himself. His ideas aroused a new interest, stimulated further
activiry in the subject, and sharpened the thinking, as did WeiersEass's
work in other domains.
Weierstrass's first point was that the criteria for a minimum or a
maximum hitherto established-Euler's, Legendre's, and Jacobi's-were
limited because the supposed minimizing or maximizing curve y(x) was
compared with other curves y(r) t et(x), wherein it was actually supposed
that al(r) and et'(z), or what Lagrange called 8y and 6y', were both small
along the ,-range from ,4 to -8. That is, y(*) was being compared with a
limited class ofother curves, and by satisfying the three criteria it did better
than any other one of these comparison curyes. Such variations et(x) were
called by Adolf Kneser (1862-1930) weak variations. However, to find the
curve that really maximizes or minimizes the integral J one must compare it
widn all other curves joining ,4 and B, including those whose derivatives may
not approach the derivatives of the maximizing (or minimizing) curve as
748 THE CALCULUS OF VARTATIONS rBOO-I9OO
these comparison curves come closer in position to the maximizing curve'

Thus a comparison curve may have a sharp corner (Fig' 30'2) at one or
several places along the r-range from I to B. The comparison curves
envisioned by Weierstrass are what Kneser called strong variations'
Weierstrass did prove in 1879 that for weak variations the three con-
ditions, that a curve be an extremal (a solution of Euler's equation), that
.fu,o. > O along the extremal, and that any
conjugate point to .l4 must lie
b"yo"a B, are indeed sufficient conditions that the extremal furnish a
minimum of the integral J (arrd fo'r' < 0 for a maximum)'
Then weierstrass considered strong variations. For these variations
weierstrass first introduced a fourth necessary condition. He introduced a
new function called the E-function, or Excess function, defined by
(19) E(*,!,y',i) :-f(*,y,n -"f(*,y,y') - Q - u').fo'@,s,u'),
and his result was: The fourth necessary condition that y(x) furnish a
minimum is that E (x, y, y', i) > O along the extremal y (x) for every finite
value off. For a maximum.E < 0.
weierstrass then (1879) turned his attention to sufficient conditions for
a maximum (or a minimum) when strong variations are permitted' To
formulate his sufficient conditions it is necessary to introduce Weierstrass's
concept of a field. Consider any one-parameter flamily (Fig' 30'3) of ex-
tremais y : @(x, y) in which the particular extremal joining ,4 and B is
includeJ, say for 7:7o. Aside from some details on the continuity and
differentiability of O(r, y), the essential fact about this family of extremals
is that in u ..gion about the extremal through .'4 and B there Passes through
any point 1*,g7 of the region one and only one extremal of the family' A
famiiy of extremals satislying this essential condition is called a field'
Given a field surrounding the extremal C6 joining A and' B (Fig' 30'a)
then if at every point (x,y) lying between x : a arrd x : b and in the region
covered by the field, E(x,y,p(x,y),fi) > 0, where p(r,y) denotes the slope
at (x, g) oithe extremal passing through (x, y) and rt is any finite value, then
C6 minimizes the integral J with respect to any other C lying within the field
and joining A ard B. (For a maximum, .E < 0.)
RELATED PROBLEMS 749
Figure 30.4 A
In Hilberts introduced his invariant integral theory which greatly

1900
simplified the sufficiency proof. Hilbert asked the question: Is it possible to
determine the function p(.t, y) so that the integral
(20) I: I" tl - (s' - p)-f",@,s, p)} tu

{ta,u,
is independent of the path in a region of (x,y) values ? He found that if
p(x,g) is so determined then the solutions ofthe differential equation
du
i;: P\'c'Y)
are extremals of a field. Conversely, if p(i, y) is the slope function of a field

F then .I is independent of the path in F From this theorem Hilbert derived
Weierstrass's sufficiency condition for strong variations.
4. Retated Problems in the Calculus of Variations

Our exposition ofthe history ofthe calculus of variations has been concen-
trated largely on the integral
t : !*'lt*,u,a) d*.
Some mention has been made of other problems, the isoperimetric problems,
the problems of several functions ofone variable such as arise in the Principle
of Least Action, and the case of multiple integrals, which Lagrange first
treated and which occurs in the minimal surface problem (Chap. 24,
sec. 4). There are numerous types ofrelated problems, such as those in which
the minimizing or maximizing curve is treated in a parameteric representa-
tion * : x(i) and y : y(r)-this problem v/as thoroughly discussed by
Weierstrass-and problems largely in dynamics in which the variables that
appear in the integrand are restricted by auxiliary or subsidiary equations'
8. Nachrichten Kiinig. G*. der lfiiss. zu Gnil., 1900,291-96 :

Ges. Abh.' 3,32&-29' There is
an English translation by Mary Winston Newsom in the Amer. Math' Soc' Bull',8, 19O2,
472-78. This material is part of Hilbert's famous paper of 1900, " Mathematical Problems."
75O THE CALCULUS OF VARTATTONS rSoo-rgoo
called constraints. The last type of problem is somewhat related to the

isoperimetric problem because there too a subsidiary condition, namely, the
length of the curve bounding the maximum area, is specified-though in
that problem the subsidiary condition is in the form of an integral that
exPresses the length of the curve, whereas in the case of dynamical con-
straints the subsidiary condition or conditions are in the form of equations
involving the independent and dependent variables or even the differentials
of the dependent variables. There is also the major problem called the Dirich-
let problem, which has already been discussed (Chap. 28, secs. 4 and 8).
We shall not trace the detailed history of these problems because no
major feature of the development of mathematics emerged from it, although
the problems are significant and considerable work has been done on them
down to the present time. It is perhaps worth noting that the subject of
minimal surfaces, which calls for solving the equation
(l + qz)r - 2Pqs+ (t + p2)t :0,
had been dormant after a paper by Amptre of lBlT until the Belgian
physicist Joseph Plateau (l80l-83) in a book of 1873, Statique expiimentale et
tMoriqut dts liquides soumis au seules formes molhulaires, showed that ilone dips
wires having the shapes of closed curves into a glycerine solution (or soapy
water) and then withdraws them, a soap film which has the shape of the
surface of least area will span the wire boundary. The mathematicians thus
received a new stimulus to consider minimal surfaces bounded by a closed
space curve. Since the boundary curve or curves can be quite complicated,
the actual analytical explicit solution for the minimal surface may be
impossible to obtain. This problem, now known as Plateau's problem, led to
work on proving at least the existence of solutions, lrom which some prop-
erties of the solutions can be deduced.
Bibliographg
Dresden, Arnold: "Some Recent Work in the Calculus of Variations," Amet Math.
Soc. Bull., 32, 1926,475-521.
Duren, W. L., Jr.: "The Development of Sufficient Conditions in the Calculus of
Variations," Unioctsity oJ Chicago Conlibutions to tlu Calculus of Varialions, l,
1930,245-349, University of Chicago Press, 1931.
Hamilton, W. R.: Tire Matlwmatical Paperc,3 vols., Cambridge University Press,
l93l, 19,10, and 1967.
Jacobi, C. G. J.: G. Reimer, 1886 and 1891, Chelsea (reprint),
Gesammclte We*.c,
1968, Vols. 4 and 7.
Vorlesurgen ilber Dynamik (1866), Chelsea (reprint), 1968. AIso in Vol. B of
Jacobi's Gesamrueltc Werke,
McShane, E.J.: " Recent Developments in the Calculus of Variatioru,," Amer. Math.
Soc, Semicenlennial Publirations, II, 1938, 69-97.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 75I
Porter, Thomas Isaac: "A History of the Classical Isoperimetric Problem,"
tlni.aersily oJ Chicago Contributions to tlu Calculus of Variatinns, ll, 475-517,
University of Chicago Press, 1933.
Prange, Georg: "Die allgemeinen Integrationsmethoden der analytischen
Mechanik," Encgk. derMath. Wiss.,B. G. Teubner, 1904-35, IV, 2, 509J04'
Todhunter, lsaac: A History of thz Calculus oJ Variations in the Ni'ruteenth Ccntury,
Chelsea (reprint), 1962.
Weierstrass, Karl: Werlce, Akademische Verlagsgesellsch aft, 1927, Yot' 7'
3r
Galois Theory
Unfortunately what is little recognized is that the most

worthwhile scientific bools are those in which the author
clearly indicates what he does not know; for an author most
hurts his readers by concealing difficulties. EvARrsrE GALors
l. Introduction
The basic problem of algebra, the solution of polynomial equations, con-
tinued to occupy the center ofthe stage in the algebra ofthe early nineteenth
century. In this period, the broad question of which equations are solvable
by algebraic operations was definitely and comprehensively answered by
Galois. Moreover, he not only created the first significant coherent body of
algebraic theory but he introduced new notions which were to be developed
into still other broadly applicable theories of algebra. In particular the
concepts of a group and a field emerged from his work and Abel's.
2. Binornial Equations
We have already discussed (Chap. 25, sec. 2) the fruitless efforts of Euler,
Vandermonde, Lagrange, and Ruffini to solve algebraically equations of
degree greater than 4 and the binomial equation x" - I :0. A major
success w,rs achieved by Gauss. In the last section of his Disquisitiones
Aithmeticatr Gauss considered the equation
(l) xe - |: o,
where p is a prime.2 This equation is often called the cyclotomic equation or
the equation for the division of a circle. The latter term refers to the fact
that the roots of this equation are, by de Moivre's theorem,
(2) #r:cosY*i"ink2!0,
'pp k:1,2,...,!,
l. 1801, We*e, l.
2. The case takes care of *" - I : 0 for if z : pq, let ! : xq. But/, - I : 0
ofp prime
f,q : const. can be solved ifq is a prime and ifnot g can be decomposed
is solvable. Hence
in the same manner that z is.
752
BINOMIAL EQUATIONS 753
and the complex numbers ,, when plotted geometrically are the vertices of
a p-sided regular polygon that lie on the unit circle.
Gauss showed that the roots of this equation may be rationally exPressed
in terms of the roots of a sequence of equations
(3) Zr:0,22:o,...,
whose coefficients are rational in the roots of the preceding equations of the
sequence. The degrees ol the equations (3) are precisely the prime factors
p - t. There is a Zrlor each factor even if repeated. Moreover, each of the
"t
Z, 0 canbe solved by radicals and so equation (1) can also be so solved'
--
This result is of course of great significance for the problem of solving
the general nth-degree equation algebraically. It shows that some equations
ofhigh degree can be solved by radicals, for example a fifth degree equation
if5 is a factor ofp - | or a seventh degree equation if 7 is a factor'
The result is of major importance also fior the geometric problem of
constructing regular polygons ofp sides. lf p - | contains no factors other
than 2, then the polygon is constructible with straightedge and compass
because the degrees of the equations (3) are each 2 and each of its roots is
constructible in terms of its coefficients. Thus we are able to construct all
polygons of a prime number of sides I if p - | is a power of 2. Such primes
are 3, 5, 17, 257,65537, . . .. Alternatively, a regular polygon can be con-
structed if p is a prime ol the form 22' + I .3 Gauss remarks (Art' 365) that
although the geometric construction of regular polygons of 3, 5, and 15
sides and those immediately derivable from them-for example, 2, 2'3,
2n.5,2.15, wherein z is a positive integer-was known in Euclid's time, in
an interval of 2000 years no new constructible polygons had been discovered
and geometers had been unanimous in declaring that no others could be
constructed.
Gauss thought that his result might lead to all sorts of attempts to find
new constructibL polygons of a prime number of sides. He warns then: "As
often as p - I contains other prime {lactors besides 2, we arrive at higher
equations, namely, to one or more cubic equations if 3 enters once or oftener
as a factor ofp - l, to equations of the filth degree ifp - I is divisible by 5,
etc. And *. pro,r. with all rigor that these higher equations cannot be
"u,
avoided or madelo depend upon equations of lower degree; and although
the limits of this work do not permit us to give the demonstration here, we
still thought it necessary to note this fact in order that one should not seek to
construciother polygons [of prime number of sides] than those given by our
theory, as for example, polygons of 7 , ll, 13, l9 sides, and so employ his time
in vain."
Gauss then considers (Aat. 366) polygons of any number of sides z and
asserts that a regular polygon of z sides is constructible if and only if
3. Inaprimeof the form 2r * l, p is necessarily ofthe form 2"rbwt22b + l is not nec€s-
sarily prime.
754 GALOTS THEORY
n : 2br'?e ' ' 'po, where h,92, . . ., pa zre distinct primes of the form
22^ + | and where I is any positive integer or 0. The sufficiency of this
condition does follow readily from Gauss's work on polygons of a prime
number of sides but the necessity is not at all obvious and was not proven by
Gauss.a
The construction of regular polygons had interested Gauss since 1796
when he conceived the first proof that the l7-sided polygon is constructible.
There is a story abut this discovery which may bear repeating. This con-
struction problem was already famous. One day Gauss approached his
professor A. G. Kiistner at the IJniversity of Goitingen with the proof that
this polygon is constructible. Kastner was incredulous and sought to dismiss
Gauss, much as university teachers today dismiss angle-trisectors. Rather
than take the time to examine Gauss's proof and find the supposed error in it,
Kiistner told Gauss the construction was unimportant because practical
constructions were known. Of course Kiistner knew that the existence of
practical or approximate constructions was irrelevant for the theoretical
problem. To interest Kiistner in his proof Gauss pointed out that he had solved
a seventeenth degree algebraic equation. K2istner replied that the solution
was impossible. But Gauss rejoined that he had reduced the problem to
solving an equation of lower degree. "Oh well," scoffed Kiistner, "I have
already done this." Later Gauss repaid Kiistner, who also prided himself on
his poetry, by lauding K?istner as the best poet among mathematicians and
the best mathematician among poets.
3. Abel's Work on the Solution of Equations by Radicals

Abel read Lagrange's and Gauss's work on the theory ofequations and while
still a student in high school tackled the problem of the solvability of higher
degree equations by following Gauss's reatment of the binomial equation.
At first Abel thought he had solved the general fifth degree equation by
radicals. But soon convinced ofhis error he tried to prove that such a solution
was not possible (1824-26). Fint he succeeded in proving the theorem: The
roots ofan equation solvable by radicals can be given such a form that each
of the radicals occurring in the expressions for the roots is expressible as a
rational function ofthe roots ofthe equation and certain roots ofunity. Abel
then used this theorem to proves the impossibility of solving by radicals the
Beneral equation of degree greater than four.
Abel's proof, done in ignorance of Ruffini's work (Chap. 25, sec. 2), is
4. See James Pierpont, "On an IJndemonstrated Theorem of t}:e Disquisitiones Arith-

melicac," Amer. Math. Soc. Bull.,2, 1895-96,77-€3. This articlc gives the proof. The fact
that the Gauss condition is necessary was first proved by Pierre L. Wantzel (1814-48),
Jour. de Math., 2, 1837, 366-72.
5, Jour. Jir Math., 1,1826, 65-44 : (Euores, l, 66-94.
GALOIS'S THEORY OF SOLVABILITY 755
roundabout and unnecessarily complicated' His paper also contained an

the
error in a classification offunctions, which lortunately was not essential to
argument. He later published two more elaborate proofs' A simple' direct' and
.iiorou basei on Abel's idea was given by Kronecker in 18796'
" Th,l,proof
the question of the solution of general equations of degree higher
than four was settled by Abel. He also considered some special equations' He
took up7 the problem of the division of the lemniscate (solving x" - I
: 0 is
the equivatent of the problem of the division ol the circle into z equal arcs)
and arrived at a class of algebraic equations, now called Abelian equations'
that are solvable by radicais. The cyclotomic equation (l) is an examPle of
an Abelian equation. More generally an equation is called Abelian if all its
roots are rational functions of one of them, that is, if the roots are
x1, 01(x1), lr(xr),. . ., 0o-r(rr) where the d1 are rational functions' There is
ir" thtt 0'(0 6@1)) : |uQ'@')) for all values of c and B from
"i* "o"otiot'
I to n - l.
In this last work he introduced two notions (though not the terminology),
field and polynomial irreducible in a given field' By a field of numbers he'
like Galois later, meant a collection of numbers such that the sum, difference,
product, and quotient ol any two numbers in the collection (except division
Ly 0) are also in the collection. Thus the rational numbers, real numbers'
u,,d"o.pl"*numbersformafield.Apolynomialissaidtobereducibleina
field (usually the field to which its coefficients belong) if it can be expressed
as the product of two polynomials of lower degrees and with coefficients
in
the fieli. If the polynomial cannot be so expressed it is said to be irreducible.
Abel then tackled the problem of characterizing all equations which are
solvable by radicals and had communicated some results to crelle and to
Legendre just before death overtook him in lB29'
4. Galois's Theory of SolaabilitY

After Abel,s work the situation was as follows: Although the general equation
of degree higher than four was not solvable by radicals, there were many
,p."iJl such as the binomial equations xe : at p a prime, and
"qrriions,
Ab.liu., equations that were solvable by radicals' The task now became to
determine which equations are solvable by radicals' This task,
just begun
by Abel, was taken up by Evariste Galois (lBl l-32)' Born to well-to-do and
eiucated parents he attended one ofthe celebrated lycies ofParis and started
to study mathematics at the age of fifteen' This subject became his passion
and he studied carefully the works of Lagrange, Gauss, Cauchy, and Abel'
6. l[onatsber. Berliner Akad,, 1879, 205-29 : Werke, 4, ?3-96' Kronecker's proof is ex-
plained byJames Pierpoint: "On the Ruffini-Abelian Thcorem, Amer' Math' Soc' Bull''2'
1895-96,200-21.
7. Jour. filr Math.,4, 1829, 13l-56 : (Euores, l' 47V507 '
756 GALOIS THEORY
The other subjects he neglected. Galois sought to enter the Ecole Poly-
technique but possibly because he failed to explain in sufficient detail the
questions he had to answer orally at the entrance examination or because the
examining professors did not understand him he was rejected in two tries.
He therefore entered the Ecole Priparatoire (the name then for the Ecole
Normale and a much inferior school at that time.) During the lB30 Revolu-
tion, which drove Charles X from the throne and installed Louis Philippe,
Galois publicly criticized the director of his school for failing to support
the Revolution and was expelled. He was twice arrested for political offenses,
spent most of the last year and a half of his life in prison, and was killed in a
duel on May 31, 1832.
During his first year at the Ecole Galois published four papers. In 1829
he submitted two papers on the solution of equations to the Academy of
Sciences. These were entrusted to Cauchy, who lost them. In January of
lB30 he presented to the Academy of Sciences another carefully written
paper on his research. This was sent to Fourier, who died soon after, and
this paper too was lost. At the suggestion of Poisson Galois wrote (l83l) a
new paper on his research. This article, "Sur les conditions de r6solubilit6
des 6quations par radicaux,"s the only finished article on his theory of
the solution of equations, was returned by Poisson as unintelligible, with the
recommendation that a fuller exposition be written. The night before his
death Galois drew up a hastily written account of his researches which he
entrusted to his friend, August Chevalier. This account has been preserved.
In 1846 Liouville edited and published in the Journal dt Mathimatiquess
part of Galois's papers including a revision olthe I83l paper. Then Serret's
Cours d'alglbrc superiture (3rd ed.) of l866 gave an exposition of Galois's ideas.
The first full and clear presentation of Galois theory was given in 1870 by
Camille Jordan in his book Traiti des substitutions et des iquations algibriques.
Galois approached the problem of characterizing equations solvable by
radicals by improving on Lagrange's ideas, though he also derived some
suggestions from Legendre's, Gauss's, and Abel's work. He proposed to
consider the general equation, which is, of course,
(4) xo * arxo-r +...+ ao-p * an: O
wherein, as in the work of Lagrange, the coefficients must be independent or

completely arbitrary, and particular equations, such as
(5) xa*!xz+q:O,
wherein only two coefficients are independent. Galois's main thought was to
bypass the construction of the Lagrange resolvents (Chap. 25, sec. 2) of the
8. CEuares, 1897, 33-50.

9. Jour. de Math., ll,
1846, 381-444.
GALOIS'S THEORY OF SOL\/ABILrIY 757
given polynomial equation, a construction requiring great skill and having no

clear methodology.
Like Lagrange, Galois makes use of the notion of substitutions or
permutations of the roots. Thus if rr, )t27 )ts dnd. xn are the four roots of a
fourth degree equation, the interchange of r, and *s in any expression
involving the r, is a substitution. This particular substitution is indicated by
)tZ *S
(:, xa tca ;)
A second substitution is indicated by
(:" :^ :: :)
To perform the first substitution and then the second one is equivalent to
performing the third substitution
f: :::, :)
because, for example, by the first substitution *, is replaced by xs; by the
second substitution *, is replaced by ra; and by the third substitution *,
goes directly into ra. One says that the product of the first two substitutions
taken in the orderjust indicated is the third substitution. There are in all 4!
possible substitutions, The set ofsubstitutions is said to form a group because
the product of any two substitutions is a member of the set. This notion,
which is not of course a formal definition of an abstract group, is due to
Galois.
To secure some grasp of Galois's ideas let us consider the equationlo
x4+Pxz*q:o,
where p and q are independent. Let R be the field formed by rational
expressions inp and 4 and with coefficients in the field of rational numbers, a
typical expression being (3p' - 4q)lk'- 7p). One says with Galois that iR
is the field obtained by adjoining the letters or indeterminates p and ? to
the rational numbers. This field rR is the field or domain of rationaliry of the
coefficients of the given equation eind the equation is said to belong to the
field rt. Like Abel, Galois did not use the terms field or domain of rationality
but he did use the concept.
10. Since Galois's own presentation of his ideas was not clear and he introduced so many
new notions, we shall utilize an example due to Verriest (see the bibliography at thc end
of the chapter) to help make Galois's theory clear,
758 GALors THEoRY
We happen to know that the roots of the fourth degree equation are
*t: ^2- -
l-P-{P'-4q
,s:{-------T-,
Then it is true that the two relatiors with coefficients in .R
*1 *x2:0 and xr+xr:O

hold for the roots. Since our given equation is of the fourth degree there are
twenty-four possible substitutions of the roots. The following eight sub-
stitutions
*z Es tCt *s
E: E_
(;
f:tz xs :) xt xB :,),
xz ts *z *g
Ec: (;: Eg: (;,
tc rt ;) x1 *4 ;)
*z *g *z *g
Et: Ea:
[: It )Ct :), [: xs *t :),
*z *s Xz lts Xl\
Ea: Ez:
f: *t *z ;) f: *a nz -J
leave the two relations true in X.lr One could show that these eight are the
only substitutions of the twenty-four which leave invariant a/l relations in R
among the roots. These eight are the group of the equation in .R. They are a
subgroup ofthe full group. That is, the group ofan equation with respect to
a field .R is the group or subgroup of substitutions on the roots which leave
invariant a/J the relations with coefficients in -R among the roots of the given
equation (whether general or particular). One can say that the number of
substitutions that leave all relations in B invariant is a measure of our
ll. For the general equation of degree z, that is, with z independent quantities as co-
efficicnts, a function of the roots is inuaiant under or unaltered by a substitution on the
roots if and only ifit remains identical with the original function. If the coefficients are all
numcrical then a function is unaltered if it remains numerically the same. Thus for
ro +.r2 + x * I :0 the roots are ,r1 : -1,x2: r, and x3: -i. Consider x!. The
substitution xo for x2 givcs x!. This has the same numerical value as x!. Then r! is not
altered by the substitution, If the coefficients contain somc numerical values and some
independent quantities then a function of the roots remains unaltered by a substitution on
the roots if the function remains numerically the same for all values of the independent
quantities (in thc domain to which these may be limited) and the numcrical values which
the roots may zulsume.
GALOIS'S THEORY OF SOLVABILITY 7s9
ignorance of the roots because we can not distinguish them under these
eight substitutions.
Now consider x? - xZ which equals l-p- 4q. We adjoin this radical
to .R, and form the field rR', that is, we form the smallest field containing .R
and,lf--il.16r.,
(6) x? -xZ: '{F=Zo
is a relation in.R', Since xr + x2 : 0 and xs * xa : 0 we also have
x? : xZ and' xl : fi.
Then in view ofthese last two facts we can say that the first four ofthe above
eight substitutions leave the relation (6) in n' true, but the last four do not.
Then the four substitutions, if they leave eaery true relation in R' among the
roots invariant, are the group ofthe equation in rR'. The four are a subgroup
ofthe eight,
Now suppose we adjoin to R' the quantity 1/(-j@ w5s1s
D : \/FA and form the field.R". Then
Xg-X4:l
is a relation inft'. This relation remains invariant only under the first two
substitutions E and. El but not under the rest of the eight. Then the group of
the equation in ft'consists ofthese two substitutions, provided every relation
in rt" among the roots remains invariant under these two substitutions. The
two are a subgroup of the four substitutions.
If we now adjoin to.R" the quantity lT-iTDll we get it'. In.tB'we
have
X1 -fi2:l -P+t)
2
Now the only substitution leaving all relations in l?'true is just.E and this is
the group of the equation in R-.
We may see from the above discussion that the group of an equation is a
key to its solvability because the group expresses the degree of indistinguish-
ability of the roots. It tells us what we do not know about the roots.
There were many groups, or strictly a group ofsubstitutions and succes-
sive subgroups, involved above. Now the order of a group (or subgroup) is the
number of elements in it. Thus we had groups of the orders 24, B, 4,2, and l.
The order ofa subgroup always divides the order ofthe group (sec. 6). The
indzx of a subgroup is the order of the group in which it lies divided by the
order ofthe subgroup. Thus the index of the subgroup of order B is 3.
760 cAlors THEoRY
The above sketch merely shows the ideas Galois dealt with. His work
proceeded as follows: Given an equation general or particular, he showed
first how one could find the group G ol this equation in the field of the co-
efficients, that is, the group of substitutions on the roots that leaves in-
variant every relation among the roots with coefficients in that field. Of
course one must find the group of the equation without knowing the roots.
In our example above, the group of the quartic equation was of order B and
the field of the coefficients was R. Having found the group G of the equation,
one seeks next the largest subgroup H in G. In our example this was the
subgroup of order 4. If there should be two or more largest subgroups we
take any one. The determination of H is a matter ol pure group theory and
can be done. Having found //, one can find by a set ofprocedures involving
only rational operations a function { ofthe roots whose coefficients belong
to rR and which does not change value under the substitutions in 11but does
change under all other substitutions in G. In our example above the function
was *f - rfi. Actually an infinity of such functions can be obtained. One must
of course find such a function without knowing the roots. There is a method
of constructing an equation in ft one of whose roots is this function {. The
degree ofthis equation is the index of Ilin G. This equation is called a partial
resolvent.l2 In our example the equation is 12 - (p'- 4q):0 and its
degree is Bl4 or 2.
One must now be able to solve the partial resolvent to find the root {.
In our exampl e $is t/ p2 --fi. One adjoins d to R and obtains a new field
.R'. Then the group of the original equation with respect to the field R' can
be shown to be H.
We now repeat the procedure. We have the group 11, of order 4 in our
example, and the field R'. We seek next the largest subgroup in 1L In our
example, it was the subgroup of order 2. Let us call this subgroup r(. One
can now obtain a function of the roots of the original equation whose co-
efficients belong to lt'and whose value is unchanged by every substitution
in l( but is changed by other substitutions in 1L In our example above this
was rs - xo. To find this function, /, say, without knowing the roots, one
constructs an equation in R' having the function /, as a root. In our example
this equation is t2 - 2(-p - \/F -4) : 0. The degree of this equation
is the index of ( with respect to H, that is, 4f2 or 2. This equation is the
second partial resolvent.
Now one must be able to solve this resolvent equation and get a root,
the function {r, and adjoin this value to .R' thereby forming the field ,R".
With respect to .R" the group of the equation is I(.
We again repeat the process. We find the largest subgroup Z in 1(. In
our example this was just the identity substitution E. We seek a function ol
12. This use of the word "resolvent" is diflerent from Lagrange's use.
cAr.ors's THEoRY oF soLvABrLrrY 76t
the roots (with coefficients in R") which retains its value under E but not
under the other substitutions of r(. In our example such a function was
fit - xz, To obtain this {, without knowing the roots we must construct
an equation in -R" having the function $2 as a root. In our example the
equation is t2 - 2(-p + lt - +q) : 0. The degree ol this equation is
the index of I in K. In our example this index was 2/l or 2. This equation is
the third partial resolvent. We must solve this equation to find the value {r.
By adjoining this root to R" one gets a field .l?'. Let us suppose that we
have reached the final stage wherein the group ofthe original equation in rR"
is the identity substitution, .8.
Now Galois showed that when the group of an equation with respect to
a given field is just d then the roots of the equation are members of that
field. Hence the roots lie in the field R", and we know the field in which the
roots lie because .R' was obtained from the known field ,R by successive
adjunction of known quantities, There is next a straightforward process for
finding the roots by rational operations in R'.
Galois gave a method of finding the group of a given equation, the
successive resolvents, and the groups of the equation with respect to the
successively enlarged fields of coefficients that result from adjoining the roots
of these successive resolvents to the original coefficient field, that is, the
successive subgroups of the original group. These processes involve consider-
able theory but, as Galois pointed out, his work was not intended as a
practical method of solving equations.
And now Galois applied the above theory to the problem of solving
polynomial equations by rational operations and radicals. Here he introduced
another notion of group theory, Suppose IIis a subgroup of G. If one multi-
plies the substitutions of H by any element g of G then one obtains a new
collection ol substitutions which is denoted by gI1, the notation indicating
that the substitution g is performed first and then any element of /Jis applied.
If gH : Hg for every g in G then 11 is called a normal (self-conjugate or
invariant) subgroup in G.
We recall that Galois's method of solving an equation called lor finding
and solving the successive resolvents. Galois showed that when the resolvent
that serves to reduce the group ofan equation, say from G to Il, is a binomial
equation *e : ,4 of prime degreep, then.F/is a normal subgroup in G (and of
indexl), and conversely if flis a normal subgroup in G and of prime indexp
then the corresponding resolvent is a binomial equation of degree p or can
be reduced to such. Ifall ofthe successive resolvents are binomial equations,
then, in view olGauss's iesult on binomial equations, we can solve the original
equation by iadicals. For, we know that we can pass from the initial field to
the final field in which the roots lie by successive adjunctions of radicals.
Conversely if an equation is solvable by radicals then the set of resolvent
equations must exist, and these are binomial equations.
762 oAlors THEoRY
Thus the theory of solvability by radicals is in general outline the same

that the series of subgroups
as the theory of solution given earlier excePt
G, H, K, L,..., E
must each be a maximum normal subgroup (not a subgroup of any larger
normal subgroup) of the preceding group. Such a series is called a com-
position series. The indices of H in G, K h H, and so forth are call,ed the
indices ofthe composition series. If the indice s are pime rrxnbers the eqLation
is solvable by radicals, and if the indices are not prime the equation is not
solvable by radicals. As one proceeds to find the sequence of maximal normal
subgroups there may be a choice; that is, there may be more than one
maximal normal subgroup of highest order in a given grouP or subgroup.
One may choose any one, though thereafter the subgroups may differ. But
the very same set ofindices will result though the order in which they appear
may difier (see the Jordan-Holder theorem below). The group G, which
contains a composition series of prime indices, is said to be solvable.
How does the Galois theory show that the general zth-degree equation
for z > 4 is not solvable by radicals whereas for n < 4 they are? For the
general zth-degree equation the group is composed of all the z! substitutions
of the z roots. This group is called the symmetric group of degree z' Its
order is of course a!. It is not dimcult to find the composition series for each
syrnmetric group. The maximal normal subgroup, which is called the
alternating subgroup, is of order nll2, The only normal subgroup of the
alternating group is the identity element. llence the indices are 2 and nll2.
But the number nll2, for n > 4, is never prime. Hence the general equation
of degree greater than 4 is not solvable by radicals. On the other hand, the
quadratic equation can be solved with the aid ofa single resolvent equation.
The indices of the composition series consist of just the single number 2.
The general third degree equation requires for its solution two resolvent
equations of the form U2 : A and, zs : B. These are of course binomial
resolvents. The indices of the composition series are 2 and 3. The general
fourth degree equation can be solved with four binomial resolvent equations,
one of degree 3 and three of degree 2. The indices of the composition series
are, then, 21 31 21 2.
For equations with numerical coefficients as oPposed to those with
literal independent coefficients, Galois gave a theory similar to that described
above. However, the process of determining the solvability by radicals is
more complicated even though the basic principles are the same.
Galois also proved some special theorems. If one has an irreducible
equation of prime degree whose coefficients lie in a field rR and whose roots
are all rational functions of two of the roots with coefficients in R then the
equation is solvable by radicals. He also proved the converse: Every ir-
reducible equation of prime degree which is solvable by radicals has the
THE GEOMETRTC CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS 763
property that each of its roots is a rational function of two ol them with
coefficients in .R. Such an equation is now called Galoisian. The simplest
example of a Galoisian equation is xp - A : 0. The notion is an extension
of Abelian equations.
As a postscript Hermite 13 and Kronecker in a letter to Hermite 14 and
in a subsequent paperls solved the general quintic equation by means of
elliptic modular functions. This is analogous to the use of trigonometric
functions to solve the irreducible case of the cubic equation.
5. The Geometric Construction Problems

The eighteenth-century mathematicians doubted that the famous con-
struction problems could be solved. Galois's work supplied a criterion on
constructibility that disposed of some of the lamous problems'
Each step of a construction with straightedge and compass calls for
finding a point of intersection either of two lines, a line and a circle, or two
circles. With the introduction of coordinate geometry it was recognized that
in algebraic terms such steps mean the simultaneous solution of either two
linear equations, a linear and a quadratic, or two quadratic equations. In
any case, the worst that is involved algebraically is a square root, Hence
successive quantities found by successive steps or constructions are at worst
the result ofa chain of square rools applied to the given quantities. Accordingly,
constructible quantities must lie in fields obtained by adjoining to the field
containing the given quantities only square roots ofthe given or subsequently
constructed quantities. We may call such extension fields quadratic extension
fields.
In performing the successive constructions a few restrictions must be
observed. For example, some of the processes permit the use of an arbitrary
line or circle. Thus in bisecting a line segment we can use circles larger than
half of the line segment. One must choose this circle in the field or the con-
structible extension field of the given elements. This can be done.
Also, the extension fields may involve complex elements because, for
example, the square root of a negative coordinate may occur. These complex
elements are constructible because the real and imaginary parts ofthe com-
plex quantities that do occur are each roots of a real equation and these
roots are constructible.
Given a construction problem, one first sets up an algebraic equation
whose solution is the desired quantity. This quantity must belong to some
quadratic extension field ofthe field ofthe given quantities. In the case ofthe
regular polygon of 17 sides this equation is *17 - I : 0 and the given
13. Conp. Rend., 46, 1858, 508-15 : (Euures,2, 5-12.
14. Comp. Rend., 46, 1858, I150-52 :
Werke,4,4348.
15. Jour. fiir Math., 59, 1861, 306-10 :
Werlee, 4' 53-'62.
GALors THEoRY
76+
quantity can be taken to be the radius of the unit circle. The relevant
irreducible equation is 116 + x15 I '" + I : 0. In terms of Galois theory
the necessary and sufficient condition lor an equation to be solvable in
square tuols is that the order ofthe Galois group olthe equation be a power of
2. This is the case for the equation x16 * "'+ I : 0 and the composition
series is 2, 2, 2, 2. This means that the resolvents are binomial equations of
degree 2 so that only square roots are adjoined to the original rational field
determined by the given radius of the unit circle. with this Galois criterion
one can prove Gauss's statement that a regular polygon with a prime
number p of sides can be constructed with straightedge and compass if and
only if the prime number p has the form 22' + l, that is, if p : 3,5, 17,
257,... but not for p:7, ll, 13, 19,23,29,31,.. '. Galois theory can be
used to prove also that it is impossible to trisect an arbitrary angle or to
double a given cube.
But Galois's criterion does not apply at all to the problem of squaring
the circle. Here the given quantity is the radius ofthe circle. The equation to
be solved is x2 : rr2. Though this equation is itselljust a quadratic, it is not
true that its solutions belong to a quadratic extension field of the field
determined by the given quantity because z is not an algebraic irrational
(Chap. 41, sec. 2). Galois's work, then, not only answered completely the
question of which equations are solvable by algebraic operations but gave a
general criterion to di:tirmine the constructibility with straightedge and
compass of geometrical figures.
So far as the famous construction problems are concerned we should
note that before Galois theory was applied to them, Gauss and Wantzel had
determined which regular polygons are constructible (sec. 2), and Wantzel
in the paper of 1837ls showed that the general angle could not be trisected
nor could a given cube be doubled. He proved that every constructible
quantity must satisfy an equation of degree 2n, and this is not true in the two
problems just mentioned.
6. The Theory of Substitution Groups

In his work on the solvability of equations (Chap. 25, sec' 2) Lagrange
introduced as the key to his analysis functions of the r, roots which take the
same value under some permutations olthe roots. He therefore undertook in
the very same papers to study functions for the purpose of determining the
different values they can assume among the z! possible values which the z!
permutations of the z variables (the roots) might give rise to. Subsequent
work by Ruffini, Abel, and Galois lent increased importance to this topic'
The fact that a rational function of z letters takes the same value under some
16. Jour. de Math., 2, 1837, 366_72.

TrrE THEoRy oF suBsrrrurloN cRoups 16S
collection of permutations or substitutions of the roots means, as we have

seen, that this collection is a subgroup of the entire symmetric group. This was
observed explicitly by Ruffini in his Teoria generale drlLe equazioni (1799).
Hence what Lagrange initiated was one way of studying subgroups of a
group of substitutions. The more direct way is, ofcourse, to study the group
of substitutions itself and to determine its subgroups, Both methods of
studying the structure or composition of substitution groups became an
active subject which was pursued as an interest in and for itsell though the
connection with the solvability of equations was not ignored. The theory of
substitution or permutation groups was the first major investigation that
ultimately gave rise to the abstract theory of groups. Here we shall note
some of the concrete theorems on substitution groups that were obtained
during the nineteenth century.
Lagrange himself affirmed one major result which in modern language
states that the order ofa subgroup divides the order of the group. The proof
ol this theorem was communicated by Pietro Abbati (1768-1842) to Ruffini
in a letter of September 30, 1802, which was published.lT
Ruffini in his 1799 book introduced, though somewhat vaguely, the
notions of transitivity and primitiveness. A permutation group is transitive
ifeach letter ofthe group is replaced by every other letter under the various
permutations of the group. If G is a transitive group and the z symbols or
letters may be divided into r distinct subsets o,, i :1,2,..., r, each subset
containing s, symbols such that any permutation of G either permutes the
symbols of the o, among themselves or replaces these symbols by the symbols
of o1, this holding for each i : 1,2,. . ., r, then'G is called imprimitive. If no
such separation ofthe z symbols is possible, then the transitive group is called
a primitive group. Ruffini also proved that there does not exist a subgroup of
order * for all k in a group of order n.
Cauchy, stimulated by the work ol Lagrange and Ruffini, wrote a major
paper on substitution groups.l8 With the theory of equations in mind, he
proved that there is no group in z letters (degree z) whose index relative to
the full symmetric group in n letters is less than the largest prime number
which does not exceed z unless this index is 2 or l. Cauchy stated the theorem
in the language offunction values: The number of different values ofa non-
symmetric function of z letters cannot be less than the largest prime p
smaller than z unless it is 2.
Galois made the largest step in introducing concepts and theorems about
substitution groups. His most important concept was the notion ola nornlal
(invariant or self-conjugate) subgroup. Another group concept due to
Galois is that of an isomorphism between two groups. This is a one-to-one
17. Memorie ddla Societd ltaliana delle Scienze, 10, 1803, 385-409.
18. Jour. de l'Ecole Poly., 10, 1815, :
l-28 (Euures, (2), l, 64-90.
TerG GALoIs THEoRY
correspondence between the elements of the two groups such that il a'b : c
in the first one, then for the corresponding elements in the second, a' ,b' : c' .
He also introduced the notions of simple and composite groups. A group
having no invariant subgroup is simple; otherwise it is composite. Apropos
of these notions, Galois expressed the conjecture 1e that the smallest simple
group whose order is a composite number is the group ol order 60.
Unfortunately Galois's work did not become known until Liouville
published parts ofit in 1846, and even that material was not readily under-
standable. On the other hand, Lagrange's and Ruffini's work on substitution
groups, couched in the Ianguage of the values which a function of z letters
can take on, became well known. Hence the subject of the solution of equa-
tions receded into the background, and when Cauchy returned to the theory
of equations he concentrated on substitution groups. During the years 1844
to 18,16 he wrote a host of papers. In the major paper2o he systematized
many earlier results and proved a number of special theorems on transitive
primitive and imprimitive groups and on intransitive groups. In particular
he proved the assertion by Galois that every finite (substitution) group whose
order is divisible by a prime p contains at least one subgroup of order p.
The major paper was followed by a great number of others published in the
Comptes Rndus of the Paris Academy for the years 184446.2t Most of this
work was concerned with the formal (that is non-numerical) values that
functions of z letters can take on under interchange of the letters and with
finding functions that take on a given number of values.
After Liouville published some of Galois's work, Serret lectured on it at
the Sorbonne and in the third edition of his Cours gave a better textual
exposition of Galois theory. The work of clarifying Galois's ideas on the
solvability of equations and the development of the theory of substitution
groups therealter proceeded hand in hand. In his text Serret gave an im-
proved form of Cauchy's lBl5 result. Ifa function ofz letters has less than p
values where 1 is the largest prime smaller than n, then the function cannot
have more than two values.
One ofthe problems Serret stressed in the 1866 text asks for all the groups
that one can form with z letters. This problem had already attracted the
attention of Ruffini, and he, Cauchy, and Serret himselfin a paPer of 185022
gave a number of partial results, as did Thomas Penyngton Kirkman
(1806-95). Despite many efforts and hundreds ofllimited results the problem
is still unsolved.
After Galois, Camille Jordan (1838-1922) was the first to add signifi-
19. (Euores, 1897 ed., 26.
20. Exercices d'analyse et de lhysigue math;malique, 3, 1844, l5l-252 : (Ewres, (2), 13'
t7t-282.
21. (Ewres, (l), Vols. 9 and 10.
22. Jota. de Math., (l), 15, 1850,45-70'
THE THEORY OF SUBSTITUTION GROUPS 762
cantly to Galois theory. In 186923 he proved a basic result. Let G, be a

maximal self-conjugate (normal) subgroup of Gn, G2 a maximal self-con-
jugate subgroup of G1, and so forth until the series terminates in the identity
element. This series of subgroups is called a composition series of Go. If
G, * , is any self-conjugate subgroup of order r in G, whose order is p, then
Gi lr,ay be decomposed into I : y'/r classes. Two elements are in the same
class if one is the product of the other and an element of G,*r' If a is any
element in one class and, b ary element in another, the product will be in
the same third class, These classes form a group for which Gr*r is the identity
element and the group is called the quotient group or factor grouP of Gr by
Gr*1. It is denoted by GrlGr*r, a notation introduced by Jordan in 1872.
The quotient groups Ge/Gr, Gr,lGr, .. . are called the composition factor
groups of Go and their orders are known as the composition factors or
composition indices. There may be more than one composition series in Go.
Jordan proved that the set of composition factors is invariant except for the
order in which they may occur and (Ludwig) Otto H<ilder (1859-1937), a
professor at the University of Leipzig, showed2a that the quotient groups
themselves were independent of the composition series; that is, the same set
of quotient groups would be present for any composition series. The two
results are called the Jordan-H<ilder theorem.
The knowledge of (finite) substitution groups and their connection with
the Galois theory of equations up to lB70 was organized in a masterful book
by Jordan, his TraitC des substitutions et des iquations algibriques (1870). In this
bookJordan, Iike almost all of the men preceding him, used as the definition
ol a substitution group that it is a collection of substitutions such that the
product of any two members of the collection belongs to the collection. The
other properties that we commonly postulate today in the definition of a
group (Chap. 49, sec. 2) were utilized but were brought in as either obvious
properties ofsuch groups or as additional conditions but not specifi'J in the
definition. The Traiti presented new results and made explicit for sub-
stitution groups the notions of isomorphism (isomorphisme holoidriquc) and
homomorphism (isomorphisme mhiidrique) , the latter being a many-to-one
correspondence between two groups such that a'b : c implies a''b' : c'.
Jordan added fundamental results on transitive and composite groups. The
book also contains Jordan's solution ofthe problem posed by Abel, to deter-
mine the equations of a given degree that are solvable by radicals and to
recognize whether a given equation does or does not belong to this class.
The groups of the solvable equations are commutative. Jordan called them
Abelian and the term Abelian was applied thereafter to commutative
groups.
23. Jour. de Math., (2), 14, 1869, 12946 : (Euares, 1,241-48.

24. Math. Ana.,34, 1889, 26-56.
768 GALors THEoRY
Another major theorem on substitution groups was proved shortly after

the Traiti appeared by Ludwig Sylow (1832-1918), a Norwegian professor
of mathematics. Cauchy had proved that every group whose order is
divisible by a prime number p must contain one or more subgroups of
order p. Sylow 25 extended Cauchy's theorem. Il'the order of a group is
divisible by P', ? being a prime, but not by /d + 1 then the group contains one
and only one system of conjugate subgroups oforderpo.26 In this same paper
Sylow also proved that every group ofordery'" is solvable, that is, the indices
of a sequence ol maximal invariant subgroups are prime.
Quite another approach to substitution groups and ultimately to more
general groups was suggested by a purely physical investigation. Auguste
Bravais (lBl l-63), a physicist and mineralogist, studied groups of motions 2?
to determine the possible structures of crystals, This study amounts mathe-
matically to the investigation of the group of linear translormations in three
variables
xi: a,..x + a0! + agz, i:1,2,3,
of determinant + I or - I and it led Bravais to thirty-two
classes of sym-
metric molecular structures that rnight occur in crystals.
Bravais's work impressed Jordan and he uqdertook to investigate what
he called the analytic representation of groups and what is now called the
representation theory for groups. Actually, Serret in the 1866 edition of his
Cours had considered the representation of substitutions by transformations
ofthe form
ax *
x, :,_4 t,
b
d,
But the more useful representation ofall types of groups was introduced by
Jordan. He sought to represent substitutions by linear transformations of the
form
IL
(e) xi: ) a,,x,, i:1,2,...rn.

' L"
Since the substitution groups are finite some restriction had to be placed on
the transformations so that the group of translormations would be finite.
Galois had considered such transformations 28 and had limited them so that
the coefficients and the variables take values in a finite field ofprime order.
25. Math. Ann.,5, 1872, 584-94.

26. If Ilisasubgroupof G and g is any element of Ctheng-rHg is a subgroup conjugate
to H. H and all its conjugates are said to lorm a system of conjugate subgroups of G or a
complete conjugate set of subgroups.
27. Jour. de Math., 14, 1849, l4l-80.
28. CEuares, 1897 ed., 2l-23,27-29.
THE THEoRy oF suBsrITUTIoN GRouPs 16g
Jordan in 18782s stated that a linear homogeneous sutrstitution (9) of finite

period p may be linearly transformed to the canonical form
Yl:"$t' i:1'2'"''n
where the e1's arepth roots of unity. The theorem was proved by a number of
men.3o This was the beginning of a vast amount of research on the deter-
mination of the possible linear substitution groups of a given order and of
binary and ternary form (two and three variables). Also the determination
of the subgroups of given linear substitution groups and the algebraic
expressions left invariant by all the members ola group or subgroup stirred
up much research.
Directly after noting Bravais's paper Jordan undertook the first major
investigation of infnite groups. In his paper " M6moire sur les groupes de
mouvements," sl Jordan points out that the determination of all the groups
of movements (he considered only translations and rotations) is equivalent
to the determination ol all the possible systems of molecules such that each
movement of any one group transforms the corresponding system of molecules
into itself. He therefore studied the various types ofgroups and classified them.
The results are not as significant as the f,act that his paper initiated the study
of geometric transformations under the rubric of groups and the geometers
were quick to pick up this line of thought (Chap. 38, sec. 5).
One other development ol the middle nineteenth century is both note-
worthy and instructive. Arthur Cayley, very much influenced by Cauchy's
work, recognized that the notion of substitution group could be generalized.
In three paperss2 Cayley introduced the notion of an abstract group- He used
a general operator symbol 0 applied to a system of elements *,y,2,... and
spoke of g so applied producing a function *',!', Z',. ' . of x,y, 2,.... He
pointed out that in particular d may be a substitution' The abstract group
contains many operatorc 0, $, . . .. 0+ is a compound (product) of two
operations and the compound is associative but not necessarily commutative.
His general definition of a group calls for a set of operators l, c, B, . . . , all of
them different and such that the product ofany two of them in either order
or the product of any one and itself belongs to the set.33 He mentions
matrices under multiplication and quaternions (under addition) as con-
stituting groups. Unfortunately, Cayley's introduction of the abstract group
29. Jour. far. Math., 84, 1878, 89-215, p. I 12 in particular: CEa)rcs,2, 13-139, p' 36 in
particular.
30. See E. H. Moore, Math. Ann.,50, 1898, 215.
31. Annali di Mat., (2),2, 1868/69, 167-215 and 322-45 = CEuures, 4,231-302'
32. Phil. Mag., (3), 34, 1849, 527-29 : Coll. Math. Papers,l,42?-24 and (4)'7,1854,4047
and 408-9 : Palerst 2' 123-30 and l3l-32.
33. Pa!*s,2, 124. )
77o GALOIS THEORY
concept attracted no attention at this time, partly because matrices and

quaternions were new and not well known and the many other mathematical
systems that could be subsumed under the notion of groups were either yet
to be developed or were not recognized to be so subsumable. Premature
abstraction falls on deaf ears whether they belong to mathematicians or to
students. I
Bibliograplry
Ab€l, N. H.z (Euwcs compDks (l8Sl), 2 vols., Johnson Reprint Corp., 1964.
Bachmann, P. : " Uber Gauss' zahlentheoretische Arbeiten," Nachrichlen Kiinig, Ges.
dcr Wiss. zu Gott., l9l l, 455-518. AIso in Gauss's Werke, lO, Part 2, l-69.
BurLhardt, H. : " Endliche discrete Gruppen, Encgk. der Math. Wiss,, B. G. Teubner,
1903-15, I, Part l, 208-26.
................._:
"Die Anliinge der Gruppentheorie und Paolo Ruffini," Abhandlungcn zur
Matlumatik, Heft 6, 1892, I 19-59.
Gcschichte dcr
Burns, Josephine E.: "The Foundation Period in the History of Group Theory,"
Anur. Math. Monthl.y,20, 1913, l4l-48.
Dupuy, P.: "La Vie d'Evariste Galois," Ann. & l'Ecole Norm. Sup., (2), 13, 1896,
197-266.
Galois, Evariste: " (Euvres," Jour. dc Math., I l, 18'16, 3814+4.
(Eutrcs matMnatignes, Gauthier-Villars, 1897.
Eaits ct mimoircs matMmatiques (ed. by R. Bourgne and J.-P' Azra),
Gauthier-Villars, I 962.
Gauss, C. F.: Disquisitiorus Arithneticae (1801), Werhc, Vol. l, Kiinig. Ges. der Wiss.,
zu Giittingen, 1870, English translation by Arthur A. Clarke, S.J., Yale
University Press, 1966.
Hobson, E. W.: Squaring tlu Circle and Othcr Monograplu, Chelsea (reprint), 1953.
H6lder, Otto: " Galois'sche Theorie mit Anwendungen," Eruyk. der Math, Wiss.,
B. G. Teubner, 1898-1904, I, Part 1,480-520.
Infeld, Leopold: Whom the Gods laac: Tlu Story of Etariste Galoi,r, McGraw-Hill,
1948.
Jordan, Camille: (Euorcs, 4 vols., Gauthier-Villan, 196l-64.
Trait| dcs substitutiotu ct des iquati.ons alg€briques (1870), Gauthier-Villars
(reprint), 1957.
Kiernan, B. M.: "The Development of Galois Theory from Lagrange to Artin,"
Archioc for Hi.story oJ Exaa Scierces, 8, 1971, +0-154.
Lebesgue, lJenfi:. Notite sw la aie et les traoaux de Canille Joilan, Gauthier-Villars,
1923. Also in Lebesgue's Notices d'histoire des mathimatiques, pp. '$'N{5,
Institut de Math6matiques, Gendve, 1958.
Miller, G. A.: " History of the Theory of Groups to 1900," Collectcd Works, Yol. 1,
427-67, University of Illinois Press, 1935.
Pierpont, James: " Lagrange's Place in the Theory of Substitutions ," Atruer. Math.
Soc. Bull., l,
1894/95, 196-204.
" Early History of Galois's Theory of Equations," Amer. Math, Soc. Bull., 4,
1898, 332-40.
77r
Smith, David Eugene: A Sourcc Book in Mathemalics, Dover (reprint), 1959, Vol. l,
232-52, 2s3-60, 261-66, 278-45.
Verriest, G.: (Euares matMmatiques d'Eoaristc Galois (1897 ed'),2nd ed., Gauthier-
Villan, l95l.
Wiman, A.: "Endliche Gruppen linearer Substitutionen," Enryk. der Math. Wiss.,
B. G. Teubner, 1898-1904, l, Parr 1,522-54.
Wussing, H.L.: Die Gcusis des abslrakten Grappenbcgrifes, VEB Deutscher Verlag der
Wiss., 1969.
32
Quaternions, Vectors, and Linear
Associative Algebras
quaternions came from Hamilton after his really good work

had been donel and though beautifully ingenious, have been
an unmixed evil to those\ho have touched. them in any way. . . .
Vector is a useless survival, or offshoot from quaternions, and
has never been of the slightest use to any creature.
LORD KELVIN
l. The Foundation of Algebra on Permanence of l.-orm

Galois's work on equations solvable by algebraic processes closed a chapter
of algebra and, though he introduced ideas such as group and domain of
rationality (field) that would bear fruit, the fuller exploitation of these ideas
had to await other developments, The next major algebraic creation,
initiated by William R. Hamilton, opened up totally new domains while
shattering age-old convictions as to how "numbers" must behave,
To appreciate the originality of Hamilton's work we must examine the
logic of ordinary algebra as it was generally understood in the first half of
the nineteenth century. By lB00 the mathematicians were using freely the
various types of real numbers and even complex numbers, but the precise
definitions ofthese various types of numbers were not available nor was there
any logical justification of the operations with them. Expressions of dis-
satisfaction with this state of affairs were numerous but were submerged in
the mass of new creations in algebra and analysis. The greatest uneasiness
seemed to be caused by the fact that letters were manipulated as though they
had the properties of the integers; yet the results of these operations were
valid when any numbers were substituted for the letters. Since the logic of
the various types ofnumbers was not developed, it was not possible to see that
they possessed the same formal properties as the positive integers, and con-
sequently that literal expressions which merely stood for any class of real or
complex numbers must possess the same properties-that is, that ordinary
algebra is just generalized arithmetic. It seemed as though the algebra of
PERMANENCE Or FORM 773
literal expressions possessed a logic of its own, which accounted for its
effectiveness and correctness. Flence in the I830s the mathematicians
tackled the problem of justifying the operations with literal or symbolic
expressions.
This problem was first considered by George Peacock (1791-1858),
professor of mathematics at Cambridge University. To justify the operations
with literal expressions that could stand for negative, irrational, and complex
numbers he made the distinction between arithmetical algebra and sym-
bolical algebra. The former dealt with symbols representing the positive
integers and so was on solid ground. Here only operations leading to positive
integers were permissible. Symbolical algebra adopts the rules of arithmetical
algebra but removes the restrictions to positive integers. All the results
deduced in arithmetical algebra, whose expressions are general in form but
particular in value, are results likewise in symbolical algebra where they are
general in value as well as in form, Thus a'an : an+n holds in arithmetical
algebra when rn and a are positive integers and it therefore holds in sym-
bolical algebra for all m and z. Likewise the series for (a * D)n when z is a
positive integer, il it be exhibited in a general form without reference to a
final term, holds for all z. Peacock's argument is known as the principle of
the permanence of form.
The explicit formulation of this principle was given in Peacock's
" Report on the Recent Progress and Present State of Certain Branches of
Analysis," l in which he does not merely report but dogmatically affirms. In
symbolical algebra, he says:
l. The symbols are unlimited both in value and in representation.
2. The operations on them, whatever they may be, are poasible in
all cases.
3. The laws of combination of the symbols are of such a kind as to
coincide universally with those in arithmetical algebra when the symbols
are arithmetical quantities, and when the operations to which they are
subject are called by the same names as in arithmetical algebra.
From these principles he believed- he could deduce the principle of per-

manence of form: " Whatever alfebraical forms are equivaleni when the
symbols are general in form but-specific in value [positive integers], will be
equivalent likewise when the symbols are general in value as well as in form."
Peacock used this principle to justify in particular the operations with
complex numbers. He did try to protect his conclusion by the phrase "when
the symbols are general in form." Thus one could not state special properties
of particular whole numbers in symbolic form and insist that these symbolic
statements are general. For example, the decomposition of a composite
integer into a product of primes, though expressed symbolically, could not
l. Brit. Assn, Jor A&t, oJSci., Rept. 3, 1833, 185-352.
qUATERMONS, VECTORS, AND LINEAR ALGEBRAS
774
be taken over as a statement of symbolical algebra. The principle sanctioned
by fiat what was evidently empirically correct but not yet logically established.
This principle Peacock reaffirmed in the second edition of his Treatise on
Algcbrar'iut hite he also introduces a formal science of algebra' In this
Tlcatisc Peacock states that algebra like geometry is a deductive science' The
processes of algebra have to be based on a comPlete statement of the body
ol laws that dictate the operations used in the Processes' The symbols for the
operations have, at least for the deductive science of algebra, no sense other
than those given to them by the laws. Thus addition means no more than any
process thai obeys the laws of addition in algebra' His laws were, for example'
ihe associative and commutative laws of addition and multiplication and the
law that if ac bc and' c * 0 then a : 6.
:
Here the principle of permanence. ofform was derived from the adoption
ofaxioms. This apprtach pared the way for more abstract thinking in algebra
and in particulai influenced Boole's thinking on the algebra of logic'
Throughout most ofthe nineteenth century the view ofalgebra affirmed
by Peacock was accepted. It was supported, for example, by Duncan F'
i""gory (l8l3-44), a great-great-grandson of the seventeenth-century
Real Nature of Symbolical
Jaries Gregory. Gregory wrote in a paper " On the
Algebra":3
Thelighttheninwhichlwouldconsidersymbolicalalgebraisthatitis
the science which treats of the combination of operations defined not by
their nature, that is, by what they are or what they do, but by the laws of
combination to which they are subject. ' ' ' It is true that these laws have
been in many cases suggested (as Mr' Peacock has aptly termed it) by the
laws ofthe known operations ofnumber, but the step which is taken from
arithmetical to symbolical algebra is that, leaving out of view the nature
of the operations which the symbols we use represent' we suppose the
existence of classes of unknown operations subject to the same laws' We
are thus able to prove certain relations between the different classes of
operations, which, when expressed between the symbols' are called
algebraical theorems.
In this paper Gregory emphasized the commutative and distributive laws' the
t".*, lurlt g b."In irrt.oirr""d by Frangois-Joseph Servois (1767-1847) '4
The thJory of algebra as the science of symbols and the laws of their
combinations was carried further by Augustus De Morgan, who wrote several
papers on the structure of algebra.E Ic;is Tigonometry and Double Alge,bra
double algebra meant the algebra
if6+S1 ufro contains his views. The words
of numbers, whereas single algebra meant negative numbers' Prior
"o*pl.*
2. 184245; lst ed., 1830.
3. Transactions of tlu Royat Society of Edinburgh, 14, 1840, 208-16'
4. Ann. dc Math.,5, l814/15' 93-140.
5. Trans, Canb. Phil. Soc., 1841, 1842, 1844' and 1847'
PERMANENCE OF FORM I l5
to single algebra is universal arithmetic, which covers the algebra of the
positive real numbers. Algebra, De Morgan maintained, is a collection of
meaningless symbols and operations with symbols. The symbols are 0, 1, *,
-, X , *, ( )( \ and letters. The laws ol algebra are the laws which such
symbols obey, for example, the commutative law, the distributive law, the
laws of exponents, a negative times a positive is negative, a - a : 0,
a + a : 1, and derived laws. The basic laws are arbitrarily chosen.
By the middle ofthe nineteenth century the axioms ofalgebra generally
accepted were :
1. Equal quantities added to a third yield equal quantities.

2.(a+b)+c:a+(b+c).
3.a*b:b+a.
4. Equals added to equals give equals.
5. Equals added to unequals give unequals.
6. a(bc) : (ab)c.
7. ab : ba.
B.a(b+c):ab+ac.
The principle of permanence of form rested on these axioms.
It is hard for us to seejust what this principle means. It begs the question
of why the various types of numbers possess the same properties as the whole
numbers. But Peacock, Gregory, and De Morgan sought to make a science
out ofalgebra independent ofthe properties ofreal and complex numbers and
so regarded algebra as a science of uninterpreted symbols and their Iaws of
combination. In effect it was the justification for assuming that the same
fundamental properties hold for all types of numbers. This foundation was
not only vague but inelastic. The men insisted on a parallelism between
arithmetical and general algebra so rigid that, if maintained, it would
destroy the generality of algebra. They do not seem to have realized that a
formula that is true with one interpretation of the symbols might not be true
with another.
The principle of permanence of form, an arbitrary dictum, could not
serve as a solid foundation for algebra. In fact, the developments we shall
deal with in this chapter unde-rmined it. The first step, which merely
obviated the need for this principle so far as complex numbers were con-
cerned, was made by Hamilton when he founded the logic of complex
numbers on the properties of real numbers,
Though by 1830 complex numbers v,/ere intuitively well grounded
through their representation as points or as directed line segments in the
plane, Hamilton, who was concerned with the logic of arithmetic, was not
satisfied with just an intuitive foundation. In his paper " Conjugate Functions
and on Algebra as the Science of Pure Time,"8 Hamilton pointed out that a
6. Trans. Roual lrish Acadcmy, 17, 1837,29H22 : Math. Palcrs,3,3-96.
qUATERNIONS, VECTORS, AND LINEAR ALGEBRAS
776
Figure 32. I
complex number a * bi is not a genuine sum in the sense that 2 + 3 is' The
*" of th" plus sign is a historical accident and Di cannot be added to a' The
complex number a * bi is no more than an ordered couple (a, D) of real
,rrrrrib"... The peculiarity which i oi y'J introduces in the operations with
complex numbers is incorporated by Hamilton in the definitions of the
operations with ordered couples' Thus, if a * bi and c * di arc two complex
numbers then
(a,b) t (c,d): (a + c,b + d)
(a, b). (c,d) : (* - bd, ad + bc)
(r) (a. b\ lac + bd bc - ad\

ffi: \a-qa'FT-F)'
The usual associative, commutative, and distributive properties can now be
deduced. Under this view of complex numbers, not only are these numbers
logically founded on the basis of real numbers, but the hitherto somewhat
mysterious y'J i, dispensed with entirely. Of course inl:ractice it is still
convenient to use the a + bi form arrd to remember that l/'-1 t/ -t : -t'
Incidentally, Gauss did say in a letter of lB37 to Wolfgang Bolyai that he
had had this notion of ordered couples in IB3l. But it was Hamilton's publica-
tion that gave the ordered couple concept to the mathematical world'
2. The Searchfor a Three-Dimensional "Complex Number"

The notion of a vector, that is, a directed line segment that might rePresent
the magnitude and direction of a force, a velocity, or an acceleration,
entered mathematics quietly. Aristotle knew that forces can be represented as
vectors and that the combined action of two forces can be obtained by what
is commonly known as the parallelogram law; that is, the diagonal of the
parallelogram formed by the two vectors a and b (Fig. 32'l), gives the mag'
rritrrd" .rrd direction of the resultant force. Simon Stevin employed the
parallelogram
- law in problems ofstatics, and Galileo stated the law explicitly'
After the geometric representation of complex numbers supplied by
Wessel, Argand, and Gauss became somewhat familiar, the mathematicians
realized that complex numbers could be used to rePresent and work with
vectors in a plane. For example, if two vectors are represented respectively
by say 3 + ii and 2 + 4i then the sum of the complex numbers, namely,
THE THREE-DTMENsIoNAL " couplnx NuIragen" 777
5 + 6i, represents the sum ofthe vectors added by means ofthe parallelogram
law. What the complex numbers do for vectors in a plane is to supply an
algebra to represent the vectors and operations with vectors. One need not
carry out the operations geometrically but can work with them algebraically
much as the equation ol a curve can be used to represent and work with
curves.
This use of complex numbers to represent vectors in a plane became
well known by 1830. However, the utility of complex numbers is limited.
Ifseveral forces act on a body these forces need not lie in one plane. To treat
these forces algebraically a three-dimensional analogue of complex numbers
is needed. One could use the ordinary Cartesian coordinates (x,y, z) of a
point to represent the vector from the origin to the point but there were no
operations with the triples of numbers to represent the operations with
vectors. These operations, as in the case of complex numbers, would seemingly
have to include addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division and
moreover obey the usual associative, commutative, and distributive laws so
that algebraic operations could be applied freely and effectively. The
mathematicians began a search for what was called a three-dimensional
complex number and its algebra.
Wessel, Gauss, Servois, M<ibius, and others worked on this problem.
Gauss ? wrote a short unpublished note dated l8l9 on mutations of space.
He thought of the complex numbers as displacements ; 4 + Di was a dis-
placement of a units along one fixed direction followed by a displacement of
D units in a perpendicular direction. Hence he tried to build an algebra ofa
three-component number in which the third component would represent a
displacement in a direction perpendicular to the plane of a * bi. He arrived
at a non-commutative algebra but it was not the effective algebra required
by the physicists, Moreover, because he did not publish it, this work had
little influence.
The creation of a useful spatial analogue of complex numbers is due to
William R. Hamilton (1805-65). Next to Newton, Hamilton is the greatest of
the English mathematicians and like Newton he was even greater as a
physicist than as a mathematician. At the age ol five Hamilton could read
Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. At eight he added Italian and French; at ten he
could read Arabic and Sanskrit and at fourteen, Persian. A contact with a
lightning calculator inspired him to study mathematics. He entered Trinity
College in Dublin in lB23 where he was a brilliant student. In 1822, at the
age of seventeen he prepared a paper on caustics which was read before the
Royal Irish Academy in lB24 but not published. Hamilton was advised to
rework and expand it. In lB27 he submitted to the Academy a revision
entitled "A Theory olSystems of Rays," which made a science of geometrical
7. Wrke, 8, 35742.
quATERNroNs, vEcroRs' AND LTNEAR ALGEBRAS
7?8
optics. Here he introduced what are called the characteristic functions of
optics. The paper was published in 1828 in the Transattions oJ the Rogal Irish
Academg.s
In t827, while still an undergraduate he was appointed Professor of
Astronomy at Trinity college, an appointment that carried with it the title
of Royal Astronomer of Ireland. His duties as professor were to lecture on
science and to manage the astronomical observatory. He did not do much
with the latter but he was a fine teacher.
In 1830 and lB32 he published three supplements to "A Theory of
Systerns of Rays." In the third papere he predicted that a ray of light
propagating in special directions in a biaxial crystal would give rise to a cone
r"fra"t"d rays. This phenomenon was confirmed experimentally by
"f
Humphrey Lloyd, a friend and colleague. Hamilton then carried over to
dynamics his ideas on optics and in the field of dynamics wrote two very
famous papers (chap. 30) in which he used the characteristic function con-
cept which he had developed for optics. He also gave a system of complete
and rigorous integrals for the difierential equations of motion of a system of
foaies. ffi" major mathematical work was the subject of quaternions, which
we shall discuss shortly. His final form of this work he presented in his
Izcturcs on Quahrnions (1853) and in a two-volume posthumously published
Eltrurns of Quateniorc (1866)
Hamilton could use analogy skillfully to reason from the known to the
unknown. Though he had a fine intuition, he did not have great flashes of
ideas but worked long and hard on special problems to see what could be
general. IIe was Patient and systematic in working out many specific
ixamples and was willing to undertake tremendous calculations to check or
p.orr" point. However, in his publications one finds only the polished
" general results.
compressed
-H"
** deeply religious and this interest was most imPortant to him'
Next in order of importance were metaphysics, mathematics, poetry,
physics, and general literature. He also wrote Poetry' He thought that the
and imagi-
ieometrical ideas created in his time, the use of infinite elements
iary elements in the work of Poncelet and Chasles (Chap. 35), were akin to
poeiry. Though he was a modest man, he admitted and even emphasized that
love of fame moves and cheers great mathematicians.
Hamilton'sclarificationofthenotionofcomplexnumbersenabledhim
to think more clearly about the problem ol introducing a three-dimensional
analogue to rePresent vectors in space' But the immediate effect w-as to
frustrite his efforts. All of the numbers known to mathematicians at this time
possessed the commutative Property of multiplication and it was natural for
8. Trans. Royal lrish Acattcmy,15, t828, 69-174 : Malh' Papers, l, l-106'

9. Trans. Rogal lrish Academy, 17,1837,1-144 : Moth. Papers, 1,164-293'
THE NATURE OF QUATERNTONS 179
Hamilton to believe that the three-dimensional or three-component numbers

he sought should possess this same property as well as the other properties
that real and complex numbers possess. After some years of effort Hamilton
found himself obliged to make two compromises. The first was that his new
numbers contained four components and the second, that he had to sacrifice
the commutative law of multiplication. Both features were revolutionary for
algebra. He called the new numbers quaternions.
With hindsight one can see on geometric grounds that the new "num-
bers" had to contain four components. The new number regarded as an
operator was expected to rotate a given vector about a given axis in space and
to stretch or contract the vector. For these purPoses, two parameters (angles)
are needed to fix the axis ofrotation, one parameter must specify the angle of
rotation, and the fourth the stretch or contraction olthe given vector.
Hamilton himself described his discovery of quaternions: 10
Tomorrow will be the fifteenth birthday of the Quaternions' They
started into life, or light, full grown, on the l6th of October, 1843, as I
was walking with Lady Hamilton to Dublin, and came up to Brougham
Bridge. That is to say, I then and there felt the galvanic circuit of thought
closed, and the sparks which fell from it were the fundamental cquations
between l, J, K; cxadly suth as I have used them ever since. I pulled out,
on the spot, a pocketbook, which still exists, and made an entry, on which,
at the oery momcnt, I felt that it might be worth my while to expend the
labour ofat least ten (or it might be fifteen) years to come. But then it is
fair to say that this was because I felt a problem to have been at that
moment soh.ted, an intellectual wanl relieaed, which had haunled tne for at
least ffteen gears beforc.
He announced the invention of quaternions in lB43 at a meeting of the

Royal Irish Academy, spent the rest of his life developing the subject, and
wrote many papers on it.
3. The Nature of Quaternions

A quaternion is a number of the form
(2) 3+2i+6j+7k
wherein the i, j, and k play somewhat the role that i does in complex
numbers. The real part, 3 above, is called the scalar Part of the quaternion
and the remainder, the vector Part. The three coefficients of the vector Part
are rectangular Cartesian coordinates ofa point P while i, j, and k are called
qualitative units that geometrically are directed along the three axes. The
criterion of equality of two quaternions is that their scalar parts shall be
10. North British Reaiew, 14, 1858, 57.

7b quATERNIoNs, vEcroRs, AND LTNEAR ALGEBRAS
equal and that the coemcients of their i, j, and k units shall be respectively
equal. Two quaternions are added by adding their scalar parts and adding
the coefficients of each of the i, j, and k units to form new coefficients for
those units. The sum of two quaternions is therefore itself a quaternion.
All the familiar algebraic rules of multiplication are supposed valid in
operating with quaternions except that in lorming products of the units
i, j, and k the following rules, which abandon the commutative law, hold:
jk:i, kj:-i, ki:j, ik: _j, ij:k, ji:-k
(3) i2:i2:k2:_1.
Thus if
p:3 +2i+6j + 7k and 9:4+6i +Bj +9k
then
pq : (3 + 2i + 6j + 7k)(4 + 6i + Bi + 9k) : - I I I + 24i + 72: + 35k
whereas
sp : (4 + 6i + Bj + 9k)(3 + 2i + 6j + 7k) : - I I I + 2Bi + 24i + 75k.

Hamilton proved that multiplication is associative. This is the first use of that
term.ll
Division ofone quaternion by another can also be effected, but the lact
that multiplication is not commutative implies that to divide the quaternion
p by the quaternion q can mean to find r such that P : qr or such that
p : rq. The quotient r need not be the same in the two cases' The problem
of division is best handled by introducing q - or l/q. Ifq : a + bi + ci + dk
1
one defines q'to be a - bi - ci - dk and .l[(q), called the norm of q, to be

az + b2 + c2 + d2. Then /[(q) : 9<f' : q'q.By definition q-' : q'/If (e)
and q-l exists if il(q) # 0. Also qq-1 : I and q-1q : 1. Now to find the
r such that p : qrwehaveq-1p : q-lqrorr: q-lP.Tofindthersuch
that p : rq we have Pq-1 : rqq-l or r : Pg-l.
That quaternions can be used to rotate and stretch or contract a given
vector into another given vector is readily shown' One must merely show that
one can determine a, b, c, and. d such that
(a + bi + ci + dk)(,ci + d+ zk) : (r'i + !'i + z'k).
By multiplying out the lelt side as quaternions and equating corresponding
coefficients ofthe left and right sides we get lour equations in the unknowns
a, b, c, and d. These four equations sumce to determine the unknowns.
Hamilton also introduced an important differential operator. The
symbol V, which is an inverted A-which Hamilton termed " nabla "
ll. Proc. Royal lrish Acadeny,2, 1844,424-3+: Math. Papers,3, lll-16.

THE NATURE OF qUATERNIONS 7BI
because it looks like an ancient Hebrew musical instrument of that name-

stands for the operator
(4) v: j9 +:ft+u{.
Atc
When applied to a scalar point function u(x,y, z) it produces the vector
-Vu: 0u.
(5) --^l
ox
+ 4*i + !u.
This vector, which varies lrom point to point of space, is now called the
gradient ofz. It represents in magnitude and direction the greatest space rate
of increase of z.
Also letting v : zri + o2i + z.k denote a continuous vector Point
function, wherein a1, a2, and u" are functions of x, g, and z, Hamilton intro-
duced
Vv: (r9* * :9* + r, *)0,, * a,j + a"k)
(6) : -(* *t **). (# -*),. (# -*)'

. (,.% - #)"
Thus the result ofoperating with V on a vector point function v is to produce
a quaternion I the scalar part of this quaternion (except for the minus sign)
is what we now call the divergence of v and the vector part is now called
curl v.
Hamilton's enthusiasm for his quaternions was unbounded. He believed
that this creation was as important as the calculus and that it would be the
key instrument in mathematical physics. He himself made some applications
to geometry, optics, and mechanics. His ideas were enthusiastically endorsed
by his friend Peter Guthrie Tait (1831-1901), professor of mathematics at
Queen's College and later professor of natural history at the University of
Edinburgh. In many articles Tait urged physicists to adopt quaternions as
the basic tool. He even became involved in long arguments with Cayley,
who took a dim view of the usefulness of quaternions. But the physicists
ignored quaternions and continued to work with conventional Cartesian
coordinates. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Hamilton's work did lead in-
directly to an algebra and analysis ofvectors that physicists eagerly adopted.
Hamilton's quaternions proved to be of immeasurable imPortance for
algebra. Once mathematicians realized that a meaningful, useful system of
"numbers" could be built up which may lail to possess the commutative
property of real and complex numbers, they felt freer to consider creations
782 euATERNroNs, vEcroRs, AND LTNEAR ALGEBRAs
which departed even more from the usual properties of real and complex
numbers. This realization lvas necessary before vector algebra and analysis
could be developed because vectors violate more ordinary laws of algebra
than do quaternions (sec. 5). More generally, Hamilton's work led to the
theory of linear associative algebras (sec. 6). Hamilton himself began work on
hypernumbers which contain n components or z-tuples,l2 but it was his work
on quaterniotrs which stimulated the new work on linear algebras.
4. Grassmann's Calculus of Extension

While Hamilton was developing his quaternions, another mathematician,
Hermann Giinther Grassmann ( 1809-77), who showed no talent for
mathematics as a youth and who had no university education in mathematics
but later became a teacher of mathematics in the gymnasium (high school)
at Stettin, Germany, as well as an authority on Sanskrit, was developing an
even more audacious generalization'of complex numbers. Grassmann had his
ideas before Hamilton but did not publish until 1844, one year after Hamilton
announced his discovery of quaternions. In that year he published his Dia
lircalc Ausdthnrngslehre (The Calculus of Extension). Because he shrouded the
ideas with mystic doctrines and the exposition was abstract, the more
practical-minded mathematicians and physicists found the book vague
and unreadable, and as a consequence the work, though highly original, re-
mained little known for years. Grassmann issued a revised edition, entitled
Die Ausdzhnungslchre, in 1862. In it he simplified and amplified the original
work but his style and lack of clarity still repelled readers.
Though Grassmann's exposition was almost inextricably bound up with
geometrical ideas-he was in fact concerned with z-dimensional geometry-
we shall abstract the algebraic notions that proved to be of lasting value. His
basic notion, which he called an extensive quantity (extewbe Gro's.ra), is one
type of hypernumber with z components. To study his ideas we shall discuss
thecasez:3.
Consider two hypernumbers
d,: d,rel + azez + d,ses and p : prel * B2e2 * Bses,
where the al and B, are real numbers and where cr, er, arld a, are primary or
qualitative units represented geometrically by direct line segments ol unit
length drawn from a common origin so as to determine a right-handed
orthogonal system of axes. The apl are multiples of the primary units and are
represented geometrically by lengths d, along the respective axes, while c is
represented by a directed line segment in space whose projections on the
axes are the lengths cr1. The same is true for the p, and p. Grassmann called
the directed line segments or line-vectors Slreafte.
12. Trans. Royal lrish Academy,2l, 1848, 199-296 : Mdth. Palers,III, 159-226.
GRASSMANN'S CALCULUS OF EXTENSTON 783
The addition and subtraction of these hypernumbers are defined by
(7) u+p : (", ! F)r, * (a2 + F)r, * (a" + p")es.
Grassmann introduced two kinds ol multiplications, the inner product and

the outer product. For the inner product he postulated that
(B) erlei:l,eje,:g foriaj.

For the outer product
(9) le,e) : -lep,l, fe,e,f : g.
These brackets are called units of the second order and are not reduced by
Grassmann (whereas Hamilton does) to units of the first order, that is, to the
r,, but are dealt with as though they were equivalent to first order units with
lrrrr] : e", and so forth.
From these definitions it follows that the inner product crlp of cr and B
is given by
"lF
: "rP,
* u2P2 * ,,3P, and
"lF
: Fl".
The numerical value or magnitude a of a hypernumber cc is defined as
l& : '/A + q', +-AB. Thus the magnitude of a is numerically equal to
the length of the line-vector which represents it geometrically. If d denotes
the angle between the line-vectors a and p, then
ow:- *"\ab
*tr , ab,+ 5&\
abp,q, +",8, :
ab)-"".abcoso.
With the aid of the outer product rule (9) the outer product P of the
hypernumbers a and p can be expressed as follows:
(10) P : l"9l : ("rF" - o,sp2)le2es) * (orp, - o'B)fesell

't (or|, - o,2P)lere2f.
This product is a hypernumber of the second order and is expressed in
terms of independent units of the second order. Its magnitude lPl is obtained
by means of a definition of the inner product of two hypernumbers of the
second order and is
lPl: \/FIP -: {@,F, o"F,), * (,"F, - o,F), * @,9, - o,F)2}rt,

(,,) : *{, - (* .* **)'}'''
: ab sin 0.
784 quATERNroNs, vEcroRs, AND LTNEAR ALGEBRAS
Hence the magnitude lP| ol the outer product [cp] is represented geo-
metrically by the area of the parallelogram constructed upon line-vectors
which are the geometrical representations ofa and B. This area together with
a unit line-vector normal to it, whose direction is chosen so that if cr is
rotated into B about the normal, then the normal will point in the direction
of a right-handed screw rotating from a to p, is now called a vectorial area.
Grassmann's term was Plangriisse,
Grassmann's inner product of two primary hypernumbers for three
dimensions is equivalent to the negative of the scalar part of Hamilton's
quaternion product of two vectors; and again in the three-dimensional case,
Grassmann's outer product, if we replace le2es] by e, and so forth, is precisely
Hamilton's quaternion product of two vectors. However, in the theory of
quaternions the vector is a subsidiary part of the quaternion whereas in
Grassman's algebra the vector appears as the basic quantity.
Another product was formed by Grassmann by taking the scalar (inner)
product of a hypernumber y with the vector (outer) product [cB] of two
hypernumbers a and B. This product Q for the three-dimensional case is
: ["F]y : ("z!s -
"s{r)yt * "t|)yz * ("rF, - az!)yz.
Q ("rF, -
In determinant fiorm
(12) a:
l:'; xi)
Consequently Q can be interpreted geometrically as the volume ofa paral-
lelepiped constructed on the line-vectors that represent a, B, and, y. ^the
volume may be positive or negative.
Grassmann considered (for z-component hypernumbers) not only the
two types ofproducts described above but also products ofhigher order. In a
paper of 1855,13 he gave sixteen different types of products for hyper-
numbers. He also gave the geometrical significance of the products and made
applications to mechanics, magnetism, and crystallography.
It might seem as though Grassmann's treatment of hypernumbers of z
parts was needlessly general since thus far at least the useful instances of
hypernumbers contained at most four parts. Yet Grassmann's thinking
helped to lead mathematicians into the theory ol tensors (Chap. 4B), for
tensors, as we shall see, are hypernumbers. Other geometrical ideas and the
idea of invariance had yet to make themselves known to mathematicians
before the day oftensors was to come. Though thinking about hypernumbers
13. Jour. far Math., 49, 1855, 10-20 and 123-41 : Gu. Math. und Phys. Werkc, 2, Part l,
t99-2t7.
FROM QUATERNIONS TO \IECTORS 785
did lead to various generalizations, no analysis (e.g. calculus) lor Grassmann's

z-dimensional hypernumbers was ever developed. The reason is simply
that no applications for such an analysis were found. As we shall see, there
is an extensive analysis for tensors but these have their origin in Riemannian
geometry.
5. From Quaternions to Vectors

Grassmann's work remained neglected for a while whereas, as we have
noted, quaternions did receive a great deal of attention almost at once'
However, they were not quite what the physicists wanted. They sought a
concept that was not divorced from but more closely associated with Cartesian
coordinates than quaternions were. The first step in the direction of such a
concept was made by James Clerk Maxwell (l83l-79), the founder of
electromagnetic theory, one of the greatest of mathematical physicists, and
prolessor of physics at Cambridge University.
Maxwell knew Hamilton's work and though he had heard of Grass-
mann's work he had not seen it. He singled out the scalar and vector parts ol
Hamilton's quaternion and put the emphasis on these separate notions.r{
I{owever, in his celebrated A Treatise on Electricity and Magnttisrn (1873) he
made a greater concession to quaternions and speaks rather ofthe scalar and
vector parts of a quaternion though he does treat these Parts as seParate
entities. A vector, he says (p. 10), requires three quantities (components) for
its specification and these can be interpreted as lengths along the three
coordinate axes. This vector concePt is the vector part of Hamilton's quater-
nion, and Maxwell states so. Hamilton had introduced a vector function v
of x, y, and z with components ,1, 22, and u3, had applied to it the operator
V : iQlAx) + :@lA!) a kQlAz), and obtained the result (6). Thus Vv is a
quaternion, But Maxwell separated the scalar part from the vector part and
indicated these by SVv (the scalar part ol Vv) and ZVv (the vector part of
Vv), He called SVv the convergence ofv because this expression had already
appeared many times in fluid dynamics and when v is velocity had the
meaning of flux or the net quantity per unit volume per unit time which flows
through a small area surrounding a point. And he called ZVv the rotation
or curl ol v because this expression too had appeared in fluid dynamics as
twice the rate of rotation of the fluid at a Point. Clifford later called -SVv
the divergence.
Maxwell then points out that the operator V repeated, gives
22 a2, a2
: -:-* - ;--
V2
ox' og'- ;--;
oz'
14. Proc. London Math. Soc.,3, 1871,224-32 : The Scientilc Palers' Yol, 2,257-66.
786 qUATERNIONS, VECTORS, AND LINEAR ALGEBRAS
which he calls Laplace's operator. He allows it to act on a scalar function to

produce a scalar and on a vector lunction to produce a vector.ls
Maxwell noted in his 1B7l paper that the curl ofa gradient ofa scalar
function and the divergence of the curl of a vector function are always zero.
He also states that the curl ofthe curl ofa vector function v is the gradient of
the divergence of v minus the Laplacian of v. (This is true in rectangular
coordinates only.)
Maxwell often used quaternions as the basic mathematical entity or he
at least made frequent reference to quaternions, perhaps to help his readers,
Nevertheless his work made clear that vectors were the real tool for physical
thinking and not just an abbreviated scheme of writing as some maintained.
Thus by Maxwell's time a great deal of vector analysis was created by
treating the scalar and vector parts of quaternions separately.
The formal break with quaternions and the inauguration of a new
independent subject, three-dimensional vector analyiis, was made inde-
pendently by Josiah Willard Gibbs and Oliver Heaviside in the early 1BBOs.
Gibbs (1839-1903), professor of mathematical physics at Yale College but
primarily a physical chemist, had printed ( I BBI and l8B4) for private
distribution among his students a small pamphlet on the ELements olf Vector
Analgsis.rB His viewpoint is set forth in an introductory note:
The fundamental principles of the following analysis are such as are

familiar under a slightly different form to students of quaternions. The
manner in which the subject is developed is somewhat different from that
followed in treatises on quaternions, being simply to give a suitable
notation for those relations between vectors, or between vectors and
scalars, which seem most important, and which lend themselves most
readily to analytical transformations, and to explain some of these
transformations. As a precedent for such a departure from quaternionic
usage Clifford's Kinematics may be cited. In this connection the name
Grassmann may be also mentioned, to whose system the following method
attaches itself in some respects more closely than to that of Hamilton.
Although printed for private circulation, Gibbs's pamphlet on vector analysis

became widely known. The material was finally incorporated in a book
15. Since in vector analysis V2 : V.V, then V24 means physically the divergence of the
gradient or the divergence of the maximum space rate of change of 4. However, the
physical meaning is clearer from the fact that the function g which satisfies V2q:0
minimizes the Dirichlet integral (see (34) of Chap. 28). The integral is the square of thc
magnitude of the gradient taken over some volume. Hence V'4 : 0 *"urrr that the mini-
mum gradient holds at any point or that the departure from uniformity is a minimum.
If V2q is not 0 there must be some departure from uniformity and there will be a restoring
force. The various equations of mathematical physics, which contain V24 in one context
or another, state in effcct that nature always acts to restore uniformity.
The notation A for V2 was introduced by Robert Murphy in 1833.
16. Tlu Scientific Papers,2, l7-9O.
FROM QUATERNTONS TO VECTORS 787
written by E. B. Wilson and based on Gibbs's lectures. The book, Gibbs and
Oliver Heaviside ( 1850-1925) was in the early part of his scientific

career a telegraph and telephone engineer. He retired to country life in lB74
and devoted himself to writing, principally on the subject of electricity and
magnetism. Heaviside had studied quaternions in Hamilton's Elements but
had been repelled by the many special theorems. He felt that quaternions
were too hard for busy engineers to learn and so he built his own vector
analysis, which to him was just a shorthand form of ordinary Cartesian
coordinates. In papers written during the 1880s in the journal Electrici.an he
used this vector analysis freely. Then in his three-volume work El,ectromagne tic
Theory (1893, 1899, 1912) he gave a good deal ofvector algebra in Volume I.
The third chapter ol about 1 75 pages is devoted to vector methods. His
development of the subject was essentially in harmony with Gibb's although
he did not like Gibbs's notation and adopted his own based on Tait's
quaternionic notation.
As formulated by Gibbs dnd Heaviside, a vector is no more than the
vector part ofa quaternion but considered independently ofany quaternions.
Thusavectorvis
v:ai*b:+ck,
where i, j, and k are unit vectors along the x-, y-, and z-axes respectively.
The coefficients a, b, and c are real numbers and are called components. Two
vectors are equal if the respective components are equal and the sum of two
vectors is the vector which has as its components the sum of the respective
components of the summands.
Two types of multiplication, both physically useful, were introduced.
The first type known as scalar multiplication is defined thus: We multiply
v and v' : a'i I b'j + c'k as ordinary polynomials and, using the dot as the
symbol lor multiplication, set
l3a)
i.i:j.j:k.k:1
i.j: j.i: i.k: k.i: j.k: k.j:0.
(
Thus v.v' : aa' + +

cc'. This product is no longer a vector but a real
bb'
number or scalar and is called the scalar product. It possesses a new algebraic
feature, for the product of two real numbers or complex numbers or quater-
nions is always a number of the same kind as we started with. Another
surprising property ofthe scalar product is that it may be zero when neither
factor is zero. For example, the product ofthe vectors v : 3i and v' : 6i + 7k
is zero,
The scalar product of two vectors is algebraically novel in still another
respect-it does not permit an inverse process. That is, we cannot always find
a vector or scalar 4 such that vlv' : q. Thus if q were a vector, q.v'would
788
Figure 32.2
be a scalar and not equal to the vector v, On the other hand if g were a
scalar then, though qv' is defined as qa'i + qb'i + q/k, it would be rare
that qa' : a, qb' : 6 and qc' : c where a, b, and c are the coefficients in v.
Despite the absence of a quotient the scalar product is useful.
The physical significance of the scalar product is readily shown to be
the following: If v' is a force (Fig. 32.2) whose direction and magnitude are
represented by the line segment from O to P' then the effectiveness of this
force in pushing an object at O, say, in the direction of OP, where OP
represents v, is the projection ol OP' on OP or OP'cos { where { is the angle
between OP' and OP. If OPis of unit length, the projection of OP' is precisely
the value of the product v'v'.
The second kind of product of vectors, called the vector product, is
defined as follows: We again multiply v and v' as polynomials but this time
let
ixi:ixi:kxk:0
(l3b) ixj:k, jxi:-k, jxt:i, kxj:-i,
kXi:j, iXk:-j.
Thus the product, which is indicated by v t v', is
v Xv' : (bc' - b'c)i * (ca' - ac')j + (ab' - b'a)k.
The vector product of two vectors is a vector. Its direction can readily
be shown to be perpendicular to that ofv and v' and pointed in the direction
that a right-hand screw moves when it is turned from v to v' through the
smaller angle. The vector product ol two parallel vectors is zero, though
neither factor is. Moreover, this product, like the quaternion product, is not
commutative. Further, it is not even associative. For example, i X j X i
mean (ixj) xj : k xj : -iori x (jxi) : i x0 : 0.
"u.t
There is no inverse to vector multiplication. For the quotient of v by
v' to be a vector q we would have to have
v:v'Xq
FROM qUATERNIONS TO VECTORS 789
and this would require, whatever q be, that v' be perpendicular to v which
may not be the case to start with. If 4 were a scalar it would be accidental
that qa'i + qb'i + qc'k would equal v.
The vector product, like the scalar product, is suggested by physical
situations. Let OP and PP' in Figure 32.3 be the lengths and directions ofv
and v'. Ilv'is a force whose magnitude and direction are those of PP', the
measure of the moment of lorce exerted by v' around O is the length of the
vector v ; v'and is usually taken to have the direction ofv X v'.
The algebra of vectors is extended to variable vectors and a calculus of
vectors. For example, the variable vector v(I) : a(t)i + D(t)j + e(l)k'
wherea(l), b(t), andc(t) are functions of l, is a vector function. Ifthe various
vectors one gets for various values of, are drawn from O as origin (Fig. 32.4)
the endpoints of these vectors will trace out a curve. Ilence the vector
lunction ofa scalar variable I plays a role analogous to the ordinary function
g : x2 + 7,
say, and a calculus of vectors has been developed for these vector functions
just as there is one for ordinary functions.
The concepts of gradient z,
(14) o":*i+alasi*?*o,
where a is a scalar function of x, y, and' z, the divergence ofa vector function
Azt--)- ----:
(15) V.n:%+
ax
---- Aa.
ov ' oz'
where a1, ur, and a, are the components ofv, and the curl ofv,
(16) Vxv: (# -*)'. (* -'#)'. (*% -#)",

were abstracted from quaternrons.
Many basic theorems of analysis can be expressed in vector form.
Thus in the course of solving the partial differential equation of heat,
79O qUATBRNIONS, VECTORS, AND LTNEAR ALGEBRAS
Ostrogradsky 17 made use of the following conversion of volume integral to

surface integral :
4) * : I I"(pcos,\ * Q cos p *
I I [,(q* * E * "
o, .R cos z) /s.
Here P, Q, and R are functions of x, y, and z and. are components ofa vector,
and ,\, p, andy are the direction cosines of the normal to the surface S which
bounds the volume Zover which the left-hand integral is taken. This theorem,
known as the divergence theorem (also Gauss's theorem and Ostrogradsky,s
theorem) can be expressed in vector form thus: If F is the vector whose
components are P, Q, and.R and n is the normal to,S then
(t7)
i/i".*:llF.nds.
Likewise Stokes's theorem, which was first stated by him as a question in an
examination for the Smith prize at Cambridge in 1854,18 states in scalar
form that
I L{\# -4*) * *(E -T) .'(# -fl}*

: I"PX + ou^ + *,
^?)
where,S is any portion of a surface, C is the curve bounding S, and *(s), y(s),
and z(s) are the parametric representation of C. In vector form Stokes's
theorem reads
(18)
JJ
*" F.n ds : Ir.4*
*,
where r(s) is the vector whose components are x(s), y(s), and z(s).
When Maxwell wrote expressions and equations of electromagnetism,
especially the equations which now bear his name, he usually wrote out the
components of the vectors involved in grad z, div v, and curl v, However,
Heaviside wrote Maxwell's equations in vector form (Chap. 28, (52)).
It is true that calculations with vectors and vector functions are olten
made by resort to Cartesian components but it is highly important to think
also in terms of the single entity the vector and in terms of gradient, diver-
gence, and curl. These have a direct physical significance, to say nothing ol
the fact that complicated technical steps can be perlormed directly with the
17. Min. Acad. Sci. St. Peter., (6), l, 1831, 39-53.

18. The thcorem was stated by Lord Kelvin in a letter to Stokes ofJuly 1850.
LINEAR ASSOCIATIVE ALGEBRAS 79r
vectors as when one replaces V'(u(x,y, z) )<,v(x,y, z)) by its equivalent,

v.V X u - u.V X v. Also integral definitions of gradient, divergence, and
curl have been given which make these concepts independent of any coor-
dinate definition. Thus in place of (14) we have, for example,
gradu :;i1--l-J1," as,
where S is the boundary of a volume element Ar and n is the normal to the

surface element d.S of S.
While vector analysis was being created and afterward there was much
controversy between the proponents of quaternions and the proponents of
vectors as to which was more useful. The quaternionists were fanatical about
the value of quaternions but the proponents of vector analysis were equally
partisan. On one side were aligned the leading supporters ofquaternions such
as Tait and, on the dther, Gibbs and Heaviside. Apropos ofthe controversy,
Heaviside remarked sarcastically that for the treatment of quaternions,
quaternions are the best instrument. On the other hand Tait described
Heaviside's vector algebra as " a sort of hermaphrodite monster, compounded
olthe notations of Grassmann and Hamilton." Gibbs's book proved to be of
inestimable value in promoting the vector cause.
The issue was finally decided in favor of vectors. Engineers welcomed
Gibbs's and Heaviside's vector analysis, though the mathematicians did not.
By the beginning ol the present century the physicists too were quite con-
vinced that vector analysis was what they wanted. Textbooks on the subjEct
soon appeared in all countries and are now standard. The mathematicians
finally followed suit and introduced vector methods in analytic and
differential geometry.
The influence of physics in stimulating the creation of such mathematical
entities as quaternions, Grassmann's hypernumbers, and vectors should be
noted. These creations became part of mathematics. But their significance
extends beyond the addition of new subjects' The introduction of these
several quantities opened up a new vista-there is notjust the one algebra of
real and complex numbers but many and diverse algebras.
6. Linear Associatioe Algebras

From the purely algebraic standpoint quaternions were exciting because they
furnished an example of an algebra that had the properties of real numbers
and complex numbers except for commutativity olmultiplication. During the
second hall o[ the nineteenth century many systems of hypernumbers were
explored largely to see what varieties could be created and yet retain many
properties of the real and complex numbers.
792 qUATERNIONS, VECTORS, AND LTNEAR ALGEBRAS
Cayleyle gave an eight-unit generalization of real quaternions. His

units were l,eye2,.,., a, with
e?: -1, ep1 : -ore, fori,j:1,2,.-.,7 and i + j
0102: es e(4 : e5, ere6 : e7
A20g : 07 ele4 : -eb eTe| : e7, eses : e6
and the fourteen equations obtained from these last seven by permuting each
set of three subscripts cyclically; e.g. e2%: et; eset: e2.
A general number (octonion) r is defined by
x: tco * *f1 *...* xzez,
wherein the *, are real numbers. The norm of x, N(x), is by definition
N(r) : xZ + x? +. . .+ xl.
The norm ofa product equals the product ofthe norms. The associative law
of multiplication fails in general (as does the commutative law of multiplica-
tion). Right- and left-hand division, except by zero, are always possible and
unique, a fact overlooked by Cayley and proved by Leonard Eugene
Dickson.2o In later papers Cayley gave other algebras of hypernumbers
differing somewhat from the one above.
Hamilton in his Lectures on Quaternions2l also introduced biquaternions,
that is, quaternions with complex coefficients. He noted that the product law
does not hold for these biquaternions; that is, two non-zero biquaternions
may have a product of zero.
William Kingdon Clifford ( 1845-79), professor of mathematics and
mechanics at University College, London, created another type of hyper-
number,22 which he also called biquaternions. If q and Q are rcal quaternions
and if crr is such that a2 : l, and ar commutes with every real quaternion,
then 4 + <,rQ is a biquaternion. Clifford's biquaternions satisfy the product
law of multiplication but the multiplication is not associative. In the latter
work Clifford introduced the algebras which bear his name. There are
Clifford algebras with units, 1,0t,...,an_1 such that the square of each
er : - | and. eie, : -e j4 for i I j. Each product of two or more units is a
new unit and so there are 2" different units. All products are associative. A
form is a scalar multiplied by a unit and an algebra is generated by the
sum and product of forms.
The flood of new systems of hypernumbers continued to rise and the
variety became enormous. In a paper " Linear Associative Algebra" read in
19. Phil. Mag., (3), 26, 1845, 210-13 and 30, 1847,257-58 : Coll. Math. Palers, t, t27
and 301.
20. Arner. Math. Soc. Trans., 13, 1912,59-73.
21. 1853, p. 650.
22. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.,4, 1873,381-95 : Coll. Math. Papcrs, l8l-200 and Amer. Jour.
of Math., l, 1878, 350-58 : Coll. Math. Papers,266-76.
LINEAR ASSOCIATIVE ALGEBRAS 793
1870 and published in lithographed form in l87l,23 Benjamin Peirce (1809-

B0), professor of mathematics at Harvard University, defined and gave a
risumi ol the linear associative algebras already known by that time. The
word linear means that the product of any two primary units is reduced to
one ofthe units just as i times j is replaced by k in quaternions and the word
associative means that the multiplication is associative. Addition in these
algebras has the usual properties ofreal and complex numbers. In this paper
Peirce introduced the idea ofa nilpotent element, that is, an element ,4 such
that A : 0 lor some positive integral n, and. an idempotent element, that is,
A : I for some ,1. He also showed that an algebra in which at least one
element is not nilpotent possesses an idempotent element.
The question ofhow much freedom there could be in the variety ofsuch
algebras had also occurred to mathematicians during the very period in
which they were creating specific algebras. Gauss was convinced (Werla,2,
178) that an extension olcomplex numbers that preserved the basic properties
of complex numbers was impossible. It is signjficant that when Hamilton
searched for a three-dimensional algebra to represent vectors in space and
settled for quaternions with their lack of commutativity he could not prove
that there was no three-dimensional commutative algebra. Nor did Grassman
have such a proof.
Later in the century the precise theorems were formulated. In 1B7B
F. Georg Frobenius (1849-1917)'4 proved that the only linear associative
algebras with real coefficients (of the primary units), with a finite numher of
primary units, a unit element for multiplication, and obeying the product
law are those ofthe real numbers, the complex numbers and real quaternions.
The theorem was proved independently by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-
1914) in an appendix to his father's paper.2s Another key result, which
Weierstrass arrived at in 186l, states that the only linear associative algebras
with real or complex coefficients (of the primary units), with a finite number
of primary units, obeying the product law and with commutative multiplica-
tion are those of the real numbers and the complex numbers. Dedekind
obtained the same result about 1870. Weierstrass's result was published in
188426 and Dedekind's in the next year'2?
28
In 1B9B Adolf Hurwitz (1859-1919) showed that the real numbers,
complex numbers, real quaternions, and Clifford's biquaternions are the only
linear associative algebras satisfying the product law'
These theorems are valuable because they tell us what we can expect in
23. Amer. Jour. of Math., +' 1881,97-229.

24. Jour. fur Math., 84, 1878, l-63 : Ges. Abh., l, 343-405.
25. Amer. Jour. of Math., +, 1881,225-29.
26. Nachrichten Kinig. Ges. dcr Wiss. zu Giitt., 188+,395-410 :
Malh. Weilro' 2,311-32.
27. Nachrichten Kinig. Ges. der Wiss. zu Gdtt., 1885,141-59 and 1887, l-7 :
Wctk'2,1-27 '
28. Nachrichten Kiinig. Ges. der l{iss. zu Gdrr., 1898,309-16: Math, l{okc,2,565-71.
794 qUATERNIONS, !'ECTORS, AND LINEAR ALGEBRAS
extensions of the complex number system ilwe wish to preserve at least some
of its algebraic properties. Had Hamilton known these theorems he would
have saved years oflabor in his search for a three-dimensional vector algebra.
The study of linear algebras with a finite and even infinite number of
generating (primary) units and with or without division continued to be an
active subject well into the twentieth century. Such men as Leonard Eugene
Diclson and J. H. M. Wedderburn contributed much to the subject.
Bi.bliograplry
Clifford, W. K.: Collccted Mailumatical Papcrs (882) Chelsea (reprint), 1968.
'
Collins, Joseph V.: "An Elementary Exposition of Grassmann's Ausdehnungslehre,"
Anur. Math. Monthl'y,6, 1899' several partsl and 7, 1900, several parts.
Coolidge, Julian L.: A History of Georutrical Methods, Dover (reprint), 1963, pp.
25244.
Crowe, IVlichael J,z A History of Vector Analysis, University of Notre Dame Press,
1967.
Dickson, Leonard E.:. Liruar Algebros, Cambridge University Press, 1914.
Gibba, Josiah W., and E. B. Wilson: Vector Analysi.s (1901), Dover (reprint), 1960.
Grassmann, H. G.: Dit liwah Ausdehnungslehre (1844), Chelsea (reprint), 1969.
......-.'...-...._: Gcsammelte matlumalisclu und plrysi.kalischc Werke, 3 vols., B. G. Teubner,
189,1-l9l l; Vol. l, Part I, l-319 contains Db lineale Ausdchnungslehre; Yol- 1,

' Part II, l-383 contains Dir Ausdehnungslehre.
Graves, R. P.: Life oJSb William Routan Hamilton, S vols.,Longmans Green, 1882-89.
Hamihon, Sir Wm. R,: Ehmrnts of Qualernions,2 vols., 1866, 2nd ed., 1899-1901'
Matlumatiral Papas, Cambridge University Press, 1967, Vol. 3'
" Papers in Memory of Sir William R. Hamilton," Srzp la Math., 1945; also
in Soipta Math., 10, 1944, 9-40.
Heaviside, Oliver: Electromagnztic Tluory, Dover (reprint), 1950, Vol. I'
Klein, Felix: Vorlcsungen ilber dip Enlwicklung der Mathematik im 19' Jahrhundert,
Chelsei (reprint), 1950, Vol. t, pp. 167-91 ; Yol. 2, pp. 2-12.
Maxwell, James Clerk: Tlu Scientifc Papers,2 vols., Dover (reprint), 1965.
Peacock, George: " Report on the Recent Progress and Present State of Certain
Branches of Analysis," British Assn. for Adttancement of Science Report for 1833,
London, 1834.
A Treatise on Algebra,2 vols., 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 1845;
Scripta Mathe matica (reprint), 1940.
Shaw, James B. : Synopsis oJ Linear Associatiae Algebra, Carnegie Institution of
Washington, 1907.
Smith, David Eugene: A Source Book in Mallumatics, Dover (reprint), 1959, Vol. 2,
pp.677-96.
Study, E.: " Theorie der gemeinen und hiiheren complexen Grtissen," Encgk- der
Math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner, 1898, I, 147-83.
33
Determinants and Matrices
Such is the advantage of a well-constructed language that its

simplified notation often becomes the source of profound
theories. P. S. LAPLACE
l. Introduction -
Though determinants and matrices received a great deal of attention in the
nineteenth century and thousands of papers were written on these subjects
they do not constitute great innovations in mathematics. The concept of a
vector, which from the mathematical standpoint is no more than a collection
ofordered triples, nevertheless has a direct physical significance as a force or
velocity, and with it one can write down at once mathematically what the
physics states. The same applies with all the more cogency to grailient,
divergence, and curl. Likewise though mathematically tlgltk is no more than
a symbol for a lengthy expression involving the limit of Ag/Ar, the derivative
is in itselfa powerful concept that enables us to think directly and creatively
about physical happenings. Thus though mathematics superficially regarded
is no more than a language or a shorthand, its most vital concepts are those
that supply keys to new realms of thought. By contrast, determinants and
matrices are solely innovations in language. They are shorthand expressions
for ideas which already exist in more expanded form. In themselves they say
nothing directly that is not already said by equations or transformations
albeit in lengthier fashion. Neither determinants nor matrices have influenced
deeply the course of mathematics despite their utility as comPact expressions
and despite the suggestiveness of matrices as concrete groups for the discern-
ment of general theorems ofgroup theory. Nevertheless, both concePts have
proved to be highly useful tools and are now part of the apparatus of
mathematics.
2. SomeNew Uses oJ Determinants

Determinants arose in the solution of systems of linear equations (Chap. 25,
sec. 3). This problem and elimination theory, transformation of coordinates,
795
756
change of variables in multiple integrals, solution of systems of differential

equations arising in planetary motion, reduction ol quadratic forms in three
or more variables and of pencils of forms (a pencil is the set ,4 1 )8, where
A and B are specific forms and I is a parameter) to standard forms all gave
rise to various new uses of determinants. This nineteenth-century work
followed up directly on the work ol Cramer, Bezout, Vandermonde,
Lagrange, and Laplace.
The word determinant, used by Gauss for the discriminant of the
quadratic form ax2 + 2bxy t cg2, was applied by Cauchy to the deter-
minants that had already appeared in the eighteenth-century work. The
arrangement of the elements in a square array and the double subscript
notation are also due to him.l Thus a third order determinant is written as
(the vertical lines were introduced by Cayley in 1841)
la' dtz arzl

(l) lr,, azz ,*1.
lo, dsz a"rl
In this paper Cauchy gave the first systematic and almost modern treatment
of determinants. One of the major results is the multiplication theorem for
determinants. Lagrange2 had already given this theorem for third order
determinants but because the rows of his determinant were the coordinates
of the vertices of a tetrahedron he was not motivated to generalize. With
Cauchy the general theorem, expressed in modern notation, states
(2) laul'lbul: lqrl,

where lasl and lD,;l stand for nth-order determinants and. cr, : 2y d,,"b,"i.
That is, the term in the ith row andTih column of the product is the sum of
the products of the corresponding elements in the ith row of larl and the
*th column of l}rrl. This theorem had been stated but not satisfactorily
proved by Jacques P. M. Binet (1786-1856) in 1812.3 Cauchy also gave an
improved statement and a proof of Laplace's expansion theorem for deter-
minants (Chap. 25, sec. 3).
Heinrich F. Scherk 798-l BB5) in his Mathematische Abhandlungen
( I
(1825) gave several new properties of determinants. He formulated the rules
for adding two determinants that have a row or column in common and for
multiplying a determinant by a constant. He also stated that the determinant
of an array which has as a row a linear combination of two or more other
rows is zero, and that the value of a triangular determinant (all the elements
l. Jour. de l'Ecole Poly., 10, 1815, 29-ll2 : (Eu,res, (2), l, 9l-169.

2. Noua. Mln. de l'Acad. de Berlin, 1773,85-128 : CEut)res,3' 577-616-
3, Jour, de l'Ecole Polg.,9, 1813,280-302.
SOME NEW USES OF DETERMINANTS 797
above or below the main diagonal are zero) is the product ofthe elements on
the main diagonal.
One of the consistent workers in determinant theory over a period ol
more than filty years was James Joseph Sylvester (1814-97)' After winning
the second wranglership in the mathematical tripos he was nevertheless
barred from teaching at Cambridge University because he was Jewish' From
I B4l to 1845 he was a professor at the University of Virginia' He then
returned to London and served from lB45 to lB55 as an actuary and a
lawyer. The relatively lowly position of professor in a military academy in
Woolwich, England, was offered to him and he served there until lBTl' A
few years of miscellaneous activity were followed by a professorship at Johns
Hopkins University where, starting in 1876, he lectured on invariant theory'
Helnitiated research in pure mathematics in the United States and founded
the American Journal of Mathematics.ln lBB4 he returned to England, and at
the age of seventy became a professor at Oxford UniverSity, a post he held
until his death.
Sylvester was a lively, sensitive, stimulating, passionate, and even
excitable person. His speeches were brilliant and witty and he presented his
ideas enthusiastically and with fire. In his papers he used glowing language'
He introduced much new terminology and jokingly likened himself to
Adam who gave names to the beasts and the flowers' Though he related
many diverse fields, such as mechanics and the theory of invariants, he was
not given to systematic and thoroughly worked-out theories' In fact he
frequently published guesses, and though many ofthese were brilliant others
*.r" i.r"o.r."t. He ruelully acknowledged that his friends on the Continent
" complimented his powers of divination at the expense of his judgment'"
His chief contributions were to combinatorial ideas and to abstractions from
more concrete develoPments.
One of Sylvester's major accomplishments was an improved method of
eliminating x from an zth degree and an mth degree polynomial' He called
it the dialytic method.a Thus to eliminate x from the equations
asxs * afi2 * arx I Ag :0
b oxz + brx + b2 :0
he formed the fifth order determinant
Ag A1 A2 as0
Oaodl a2 ag
(3) bo br b2 00
0DobL b2o
00bo br bz
4. Phil. Mag.,l6, 1840, 132-35 and 21,1842,534-39: Coll. Math' Papet, 1,5't-57 and
86-90.
798 DETERIIITNANTS AND MATRTCES
The vanishing of this determinant is the necessary and sufficient condition

that the two equations have a common root. Sylvester gave no proof. The
method leads, as Cauchy showed,6 to the same result as Euler's and Bezout's
methods.
The formula for the derivative of a determinant when the elements are
functions of , was first given by Jacobi in 184I.6 Il the au are functions of l,
1,, is the cofactor of all, and, D is the determinant then
AD
Au
@,:
and
#:Zn,*r,,
t,t
where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to ,.
Determinants were employed in another connection, namely, in the
change of variables in a multiple integral. Special results were found first by
Jacobi (1832 and lB33). Then Eugtne Charles Catalan (l8l4-94) in 1839?
gave the result familiar today to students of the calculus. Thus the double
integral,
(4)
[[r@,y1a.as
under the change of variables given by
(5) x:f(u,o), y: g(u,a)
becomes
(6) , jJ"r,oln n.lo,o,'
where G(2, o) : F(x(u, a), y(u, u)). The determinant in (6) is called the
Jacobian of x and, y with respect to u and a or the functional determinant.
Jacobi devoted a major papers to functional determinants. In this paper
Jacobi considers z functions each of which is a function of
ur,...,un
xts xz> from such z functions, the r,
. . . , xn and. raises the question of when,
can be eliminated so that the z,'s are connected by one equation. If this is
not possible the functions z, are said to be independent. The answer is that
5. Exercices d'arulyse et de plrysique mathhnatique, l, 1840,385-422 : (Euorest (2), ll, 466-

509.
6. Jour. :
Jir Math., 22, 1841, 285-318 l$ertu, 3, 355-92'
7. Mimoires couronnls par I'Acadimie Royale des Sciences et Belles-Lcttres de Bruxelles, 14, 1841.
8. Jour. filr Math.,22, 1841, 319-59 :
Werke,3, 393-438.
DETERMTNANTS AND qUADRATTC FORMS 7gg
if the Jacobian of the z, with respect to the x, vanishes the functions are not
independent and conversely. He also gives the product theorem forJacobians.
That is, if the u, are lunctions of yrand,theyrarc functions of the *,, then the
Jacobian of the z, with respect to the ,i is the product of the Jacobian of the
z, with respect to the g, and the Jacobian of the y, with respect to the x,.
3. Determinants and Quadratic Forms

The problem of transforming equations of the conic sections and quadric
surfaces to simpler forms by choosing coordinate axes which have the
directions of the principal axes had been introduced in the eighteenth
century. The classification of quadric surfaces in terms of the signs of the
second degree terms when the equation is in standard or canonical form,
that is, when the principal axes are the coordinate axes, was given by
Cauchy in his Legons sur les applications du calcul inrtnilisimal i la giomitrie
( 1826).s Flowever, it was not clear that the same number of positive and
negative terms always results from this reduction to standard form. Sylvester
answered this question with his law of inertia of quadratic ficrms in z
variables.lo It was already known that
(7) \') autcli
can always be reduced to a sum of r squares 11
(B) y? + "' + y? - y?,, -... - y?-"

by a real linear transformation
*,:2b,,u,, i:1,2,...,n,
with non-vanishing determinant. Sylvester's law states that the number s of
positive terms and r - s negative ones is always the same no matter what real
transformation is used. Regarding the law as self-evident, Sylvester gave no
proof.
The law was rediscovered and proved byJacobi.lz I[a form is positive
or zero for all real values of the variables, it is called positive definite. Then
all the signs in (B) are positive, and r : z. It is called semidefinite if it can
take on positive. and negative values (in which case r < z), and negative
9. (Euares, (2), 5, 244-85.

10. Phil. Mag., (4\,4, 1852, 138-42 : Coll. Math. Papus, 1,378-Bl.
I l. r is the rank of the form, that is, the rank of the matrix of the coefficients. For the
notion of rank see section 4.
12. Jour. ftr Math., 53, 1857, 265-70 : Werk.e, 3, 583-90; see also 593-98.
Boo DETERMINANTS AND MATRICES
definite when the form is always negative or zero (and r : /,). These terms
were introduced by Gauss in his Disquisitiones Arithmeticae (sec.271).
The further study of the reduction of quadratic forms involves the
notion ofthe characteristic equation ofa quadratic form or ofa determinant.
A quadratic form in three variables was usually written in the eighteenth
century and first half of the nineteenth century as
Ax2 I Bgz + Czz.+ 2Dxg * 2Exz + 2Fgz
and in more recent times as
(9) arrx! + arrxl + at x! + 2a12xrx2 * 2alsxrxu * 2a22x2xs,
In the latter notation the form has associated with it the determinant
lat-, ttrz a,,l
(10) lo* dzz or"l, ar!: dn.
lr", osz o".l
The characteristic equation or latent equation ofthe form or the determinant
is
larr - tr atz ars I
(l r) I or, dzz- A .zs l:r,

| ,". asz o"" - ll
and the values of tr which satisfy this equation are called the characteristic
roots or latent roots. From these values of A the lengths of the principal axes
are readily obtained.ls
The notion of the characteristic equation appears implicitly in the work
of Euler 1a on the reduction of quadratic forms in three variables to their
principal axes though he failed to prove the reality of the characteristic
roots. The notion of characteristic equation first appears explicitly in
Lagrange's work on systems of linear differential equations,ls and in
Laplace's work in the same area.16
Lagrange, in dealing with the system of differential equations for the
motion of the six planets known in his day, was concerned with the secular
(long-period) perturbations which these exerted on each other. His charac-
teristic equation (also called the secular equation) was that for a sixth order
13. By a linear transformation .ti : 2,muxf i,i : 1,2,3, the form (9) can be reduced
to )l=1l,xiL where the i, are the characteristic roots of (ll). In matrix language thc
matrix M of the transformation is orthogonal; that is, the transpose of ,44 equals the
inverse of M.
14. Chapter 5 ofthe Appendix to t,is Introductio (1748): Opera, (l),9,379-92.
15. Misc. Taur., 3, 1762-65 : CEuares, l, 520 34, and Mim. de I'Acad. des Sci., Paris,
1774 : (Euares, 6, 655-66.
16, Mim. de l'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1772, pub. 1775 : (Euvrest S, 325-66.
DETERI,IINANTs AND euADRATrc FoRMs 8or
determinant and the values of ,\ determined solutions of the system. He was

able to decompose the sixth degree equation and obtain information about
the roots. Laplace in his Mhaniqut cileste showed that if the planets all move
in the same direction then the six characteristic roots are real and distinct.
The reality of the characteristic values for the quadratic problem in three
variables was established by Hachette, Monge, and Poisson.l?
Cauchy recognized the common characteristic value problem in the
work of Euler, Lagrange, and Laplace. In his Legons of 182618 he took up
the problem of the reduction of a quadratic form in three variables and
showed that the characteristic equation is invariant for any change of
rectangular axes. Three years later in his Exercires de tnathimatiqws le he took
up the problem of the secular inequalities of the planetary paths. In the
course of this work he showed that two quadratic forms in z variables
A: S a,*,x.- B : ) b"*'*'
(Cauchy's B was a sum of squares) could be reduced simultaneously by a

linear transformation
t4:crrx\t"'*c*x!"
xn :' cnfi't +... +' r*r*!o
to a sum ofsquares. He also solved the problem offinding the principal axes
for forms in any number of variables and in this work he again used the
notion of characteristic roots.
His work amounts to the following: If A and B are any two given
quadratic forms then one can consider the pencil (family, Sciaar) of forms
uA + aB, where z arrd, o are arbitrary parameters. The latent roots of the
pencil are the values of the ratio -ufa for which the determinant of the
pencil luas * tfi111 is zero. Cauchy proved that the latent roots are all real
in the special case when one of the forms is positive definite for all real
non-zero values of the variables. Since the determinant of uA + aB is
symmetric (du: di and B could be the identity determinant (Dg : 0 for
i 1 j and. bu : l), Cauchy proved that any real symmetric determinant of
any order has real characteristic roots. Cauchy's results, duplicated by
Jacobi in l834,2o excluded equal Iatent roots. The term characteristic
equation is due to Cauchy.2l
17. Hachette and Monge: Jour. de l'Ecole Poly.,4, l80l-2, 143-69; Poisson and Hachcttc,
ibid., 170-72.
18. (Euvrx, (2), 5,244-85.
19. 4, 1829, 140-60 = Guvrx, (2),9, l7,t-95.
20. Jour. fiir Moth., 12, 1834, l-69 : Wtk,3, 19l-268.
21. Exocices d'analysc ct de plrysique mathimati.que, l, 1840, 53 : (Ewres, (2), 11,76.
BOZ DETERMINANTS AND MATRICES
The notion of similar determinants also arose from work on trans-

formations. Two determinants I and B are similar if there exists a non-zero
determinant P such that A : P -rBP. Similar transfiormations were con-
sidered by Cauchy who showed it his Legons of 182622 that they have the
same characteristic values. The importance of similar transformations lies in
classifiing projective transformations (Chap. 38, sec. 5), a problem that for a
long time was treated synthetically. If a figure F'is related to a figure G by a
linear transfiorm ation A and if another such transformation B transforms F
into F' and G into G' the transformation C which carries F' into G' will have
the same properties as l. The transformation C : BAB-L because -B- I
carries.F' into F, A carries F into G, and B carries G into G'.
In lB58 Weierstrass 23 gave a general method of reducing two quadratic
forms simultaneously to sums of squares. He also proved that if one of the
forms is positive definite the reduction is possible even when some of the
latent roots are equal. Weierstrass's interest in this problem arose from
the dynamical problem of small oscillations about a position of equilibrium,
and he showed by means of his work on quadratic forms that stability is
not destroyed by the presence of equal periods in the system' contrary to
the suppositions of Lagrange and Laplace.
Sylvester in l85l,2a working with the contact and the intersection of
curves and surfaces ofthe second degree was led to consider the classification
of pencils of such conics and quadric sufaces. In particular he sought the
canonical form of any pencil. Writing a pencil in the form ,4 + lB where
A : axe + byz + czz + 2dyz t 2ezx + 2fxg
B : Axs + By2 + Cza + 2DYz * 2Ezx * 3FxY
he considered the determinant
la*M f+iF e+AEl

(12) lr*^, b+^B a+,,l.
lr+u d+AD d+Icl
His method of classification introduced the notion of elementary divisors.
The elements of the determin ant of A + ,\B are polynomials in I' Sylvester
proved that if all the minors of any one order of @ + Bl have a factor
I + c in common, this factor will continue to be common to the same
system of minors when A and B are simultaneously transformed by a linear
transformation of their variables. He also showed that if all the ith order
minors have a factor (,\ + ")', the (i + fr)-order minors will contain the
factor (tr * s)tlr+rra, The various linear factors to the Power to which they
22. CEwre s, (2), 5,244-85.
23. Monatsber. Berliner Akarl., 1858, 207-20 = lUetke, I 233-+6.
'
2+. Phil. Mag., (4), l, 1851, I 19-40 : Coll. Math. Popers, 1,21940.
DETERMINANTS AND qUADRATIC FORMs 8o3
occur in the greatest common divisor D,(I) of the ith order minors for each i
are the elementary diaisors ol lA + ,\Bl or of any general determinant. The
quotients of D,(,\) by D,-r()) for each i are called the invariant factors ol
lA + fBl. Sylvester did not prove that the invariant factors constitute a
complete set of invariants for the two quadratic forms.
Weierstrass 25 completed the theory of quadratic forms and extended the
theory to bilinear forms, a bilinear forrn being
atzclyr + apxl!2*,.,+ annlnyn.
Using Sylvester's notion of elementary divisors Weierstrass obtained the

canonical form for a pencil A + iB, where ,4 and. B are not necessarily
symmetric but subject to the condition that ll + l-Bl is not identically zero.
He also proved the converse of a theorem due to Sylvester. The converse
states that if the determinant of A * lB agrees in its elementary divisors
with the determinant of A' * lB' then a pair of linear translormations can
be found which will simultaneously transform A into A' and B into B'.
Among the multitude of theorems on determinants are some concerned
with the solution of ln linear equations in z rinknowns. Henry J. S. Smith
(1826-83) 26 introduced the terms augmented anay and. unaugmented array
to discuss the existence and number of solutions of, lor example, the system
ap A a2g:J
bptbry:g
cic+c2Y:h.
The augmented and unaugmented arrays are
?,:'r,\ and 7,,,11
lfi ll:i
A series of results due to many men including Kronecker and Cayley led to
the general results now usually stated in terms of matrices but which in the
middle of the nineteenth century were stated in terms of augmented and
unaugmented determinants. The general results on m equations in z un-
knowns with zn greater than, equal to, or less than z-the equations can be
homogeneous (the constant terms are zero) or nonhomogeneous-are stated,
for example, in Charles L.
Dodgson's (Lewis Carroll, lB32-lB9B) ln
Elementarg Theorg of Delerninants (1867).In later texts one finds the present
condition: In order that a set of zn nonhomogeneous linear equations in z
unknowns may be consistent it is necessary and sufficient that the highest
order non-vanishing minor be of the same order in the unaugmented and
25. Mottatsber. Berliner Akad., 1868, 310-38 : Werke,2, l9-+4.
26. Phil. Trans., l5l, 186l, 293-326 : Coll. Math. Papers, 1,367-409.
Bo4
augmented arrays, or in terms of matrix language that the ranks of the two
matrices be the same.
New results on determinants were obtained throughout the hineteenth
century. As an illustration there is the theorem proved by Hadamard in
1893,27 though known and proved by many others before and after this date.
Ifthe elements of the determinant D : la,rl satisfy the condition loul . A
then
lDl < Aa ' n"rz.
The above theorems on determinants are but a small sample of
the multitude that have been established. Beyond a great variety of
other theorems on general determinants there are hundreds of others on
determinants of special form such as symmetric determinants (au: ai,
skew-symmetric determinants (au : - ar,), orthogonants (determinants of
orthogonal coordinate transformations), bordered determinants (determi-
nants extended by the addition of rows and columns), compound deter-
minants (the elements are themselves determinants), and many other special
types.
4. Matri.cu
One could say that the subject of matrices was well developed before it was
created. Determinants, as we know, were studied from the middle of the
eighteenth century onward. A determinant contains an array of numbers
and usually one is concerned with the value of that array, given by the
definition of the determinant. However, it was apparent from the immense
amount of work on determinants that the array itself could be studied and
manipulated for many purposes whether or not the value of the determinant
came into question. It remained then to recognize that the array as such
should be given an identity independent of the determinant. Thelarray itself
is called a matrix. The word matrix was first used by Sylvester2s when in
fact he wished to refer to a rectangular array of numbers and could not use
the word determinant, though he was at that time concerned only with the
determinants that could be formed from the elements of the rectangular
array. Later, as we have already noted in the preceding section, augmented
arrays were used freely without any mention of matrices. The basic properties
of matrices, as we shall see, were also established in the development of
determinants.
It is true, as Arthur Cayley insisted (in the 1855 paper referred to
below), that logically the idea of a matrix precedes that of a determinant but
historically the order was the reverse and this is why the basic properties of
27. Bull. du Sci. Math., (2), 17, 1893, 240-46 : @uures, 1,239-45.
28. Phil. Mag., (3), 37, 1850, 363-70 : Coll. Math. Papers, l, 145-51.
MATRT.E. Bo5
matrices were already clear by the time that matrices were introduced. Thus
the general impression among mathematicians that matrices were a highly
original and independent creation invented by pure mathematicians when
they divined the potential usefulness of the idea is erroneous. Because the
uses of matrices were well established it occurred to Cayley to introduce
them as distinct entities. He says, "I certainly did not get the notion of a
matrix in any way through quaternions; it was either directly from that of a
determinant or as a convenient way of expression ofthe equations:
x':ax*b!
Y':cx+dY'"
And so he introduced the matrix
(, ')
which represents the essential information about the transformation. Because
Cayley was the first to single out the matrix itself and the first to publish a
series ofarticles on the subject he is generally credited with being the creator
of the theory of matrices,
Cayley, born in lB21 of an old and talented English family, showed
mathematical ability in school. His teachers persuaded his flather to send him
to Cambridge instead of putting him in the family business. At Cambridge
he was senior wrangler in the mathematical tripos and won the Smith
prize. He was elected a fellow of Trinity College in Cambridge and assistant
tutor, but left after three years because he would have had to take holy
orders. He turned to law and spent the next fllteen years in that Profession.
During this period he managed to devote considerable time to mathematics
and published close to 200 papers. It was during this period, too, that he
began his long friendship and collaboration with Sylvester.
In 1863, he was appointed to the newly created Sadlerian professorship
of mathematics at Cambridge. Except for the year lBB2, spent at Johns
Hopkins University at the invitation of Sylvester, he remained at Cambridge
until his death in 1895. He was a prolific writer and creator in various
subjects, notably the analytic geometry of z dimensions, determinant theory,
linear transformations, skew surfaces, and matrix theory. Together with
Sylvester, he was the founder ofthe theory ofinvariants. For these numerous
contributions he received many honors.
Unlike Sylvester, Cayley was a man of even temper, sober judgment, and
serenity. He was generous in help and encouragement to others. In addition
to his fine work in law and prodigious accomplishments in mathematics,
he found time to develop interests in literature, travel, painting, and
architecture.
806 DETERMINANTS AND MATRICES
It was in connection with the study of invariants under linear trans-

formations (Chap. 39, sec. 2) that Cayley fust introduced matrices to simplify
the notation involved.2e Here he gave some basic notions. This was followed
by his first major paper on the subject, "A Memoir on the Theory of
Matrices." so
For brevity we shall state Cayley's definitions for 2 by 2 or 3 by 3

matrices though the definitions apply to z by z matrices and in some cases to
rectangular matrices. Two matrices are equal if their corresponding elements
are equal. Cayley defines the zero matrix and unit matrix as
(:::)and(:::)
The sum of two matrices is defined as the matrix whose elements are the
sums of the corresponding elements of the two summands. He notes that this
definition applies to any two z by z matrices and that addition is associative
and convertible (commutative). If m is a scalar and A a matrix then rzl is
defined as the matrix whose elements are each zz times the corresponding
element of l.
The definition of multiplication of two matrices Cayley took directly
from the representation of the effect of two successive transformations. Thus
if the transformation
x':atx*atz!
y':azLtc+az\!
is followed by the transformation
x':bnx'*bn!'
U':bzfi'*bzz!'
then tlre relation between *n , g' an.d .r, y is given by
{: (bsa1 * br2a2r) x * (brat * b nazz)!

g' : (hua11 ! brrarr)x * (b21a1, * b22a2r)9.
Hence Cayley defined the product of the matrices to be
lbrrbrr\ larrarr\ lbrror, * pa2, brra* I b b,,a22\
\;,-,;,;)\";:.;;): \u,',.',', * o;;";: o,',",i * u.,;";;)

That is, the elemint e,, in the product is the sum of the products of the
elements in the ith row of the left-hand factor and the corresponding
29. Jour.ffrr Math.,50, 1855, 282-85 = Coll. Math. Papers,2, 185-88.

30. Phil. Trans., 148, 1858, 17-37 : Coll. Math. Papers, 2, 475-96,
MATRTcE. Bo7
elements of the 7ih column of the right-hand factor. Multiplication is

associative but not generally commutative. Cayley points out that an mby n
matrix can be compounded only with zn n by p matrix-
In this same article, he states that the inverse of
la"v, a".v, a""v\
is given by $ ou'Y.,
(:, (::;: ?.1)
::, 0",Y,
",) of the matrix and ?rV is the co-factor of x in this
where V is the determinant
determinant, that is, the minor of r with the proper sign. The product of a
matrix and its inverse is the unit matrix, denoted by L
When V : 0, the matrix is indeterminate (singular, in modern
terminology) and has no inverse. Cayley asserted that the product of two
matrices may be zero without either being zero, if either one is indeterminate.
Actually, Cayley was wrong; both matrices must be indeterminate' For if
AB : O, A + 0, B I 0, and only,4 is indeterminate, then the inverse of B,
namely B-1, exists, and ABB-L : O'B-L : 0. But BB-r : L Therefore,
AI:0orl:0.
The transverse (transposed or conjugate) matrix is defined as the one
in which rows and columns are interchanged. The statement is made
(without proof) that (LMN)' : N'M'L', where prime denotes transPose.
lf M' : M then Mis called symmetric and if M' : -M then Mis skew-
symmetric (or alternating). Any matrix can be expressed as the sum of a
symmetrical matrix and a skew-symmetrical one.
Another concept carried over from determinant theory is the character-
istic equation of a square matrix. For the matrix M it is defined to be
lM-xll:a,
where lM - r1l is the determinant of the matrix M - xI and .I is the unit
matrix. Thus if
,:(:'),
the characteristic equation (Cayley does not use the term though it was
introduced for deterrrtinants by Cauchy [sec. 3]) is
(13) x'-(a+d)x+(ad-bc):O.
The roots of this equation are the characteristic roots (eigenvalues) of the
matrix.
In the lB5B paper Cayley announced what is now called the Cayley-
Hamilton theorem for square matrices of any order. The theorem states that
if M is substituted for x in ( 13) the resulting matrix is the zero matrix.
Bo8 DETERMINANTS AND MATRICES
Cayley states that he has verified the theorem for the 3 by 3 case and that
further proof is not necessary. Hamilton's association with this theorem rests
on the fact that in introducing in hii kclures on Quatemionssr the notion of a
linear vector function r' of another vector r, a linear transformation from
x, y, and, z to x', y', and, z' is involved. He proved that the matrix of this
transformation satisfied the characteristic equation ofthat matrix, though he
did not think formally in terms of matrices.
Other mathematicians found special properties of the characteristic
roots of classes of matrices. Hermites2 showed that if the matrix M : M*,
where ll1* is the transpose of the matrix formed by replacing each element
of M by its complex conjugate (such M's are now called Hermitian), then
the characteristic roots are real. In 186l Clebsch 33 deduced from Hermite's
theorem that the non-zero characteristic roots of a real skew-symmetric
matrix are pure imaginaries. Then Arthur Buchheim3a (1859-88) demon-
strated that if M is symmetric and the elements are real, the characteristic
roots are real, though this result was already established for determinants by
Cauchy.ss Henry Taber (1860-?) in another paperso asserted as evident
that if
xn - mr*'t-L * fllz*n-2 -...+ nn:O
M, then the determinant
is the characteristic equation of any square rnatrix
of M
is mn and if by a principal minor of a matrix we understand the deter-
minant of a minor whose diagonal is part of the main diagonal of M, then mt
is the sum of the principal i-rowed minors. In particular, then, m1, which
is also the sum of the characteristic roots, is the sum of the elements along
the main diagonal. This sum is called the trace of the matrix. The proofs of
Taber's assertions were given by William Henry Metzler (1863-?).3?
Frobenius3s raised a question related to the characteristic equation. He
sought the minimal polynomial-the polynomial of lowest degree-which
the matrix satisfies. He stated that it is formed lrom the factors of the
characteristic polynomial and is unique. It was not until 19043e that Kurt
Hensel (186l-1941) proved Frobenius's statement of uniqueness. In the
same article, Hensel also proved that ifrf(x) is the minimal polynomial of a
matrix rM and g(x) is any other polynomial satisfied by M, then f (x) divides
s@).
3t. 18s3, p. 566.
32. Comp. Rend.,4l, 1855, l8l-83 : CEuues, l, 479-gl.
33. Jow. far Math.,62, 1863,232-45.
34. Musonger of Math., (2), 14, 1885, 14344.
35. (Euorer, (2), 9, 174-91.
36. Amer. Jour. of Malh., 12, 1890, 337-96.
37 . Amer. Jour. o-f Math., 14, l89l192, 326_77 .
38. Jour. fiir Math., 84, 1878, l-63 : Gu. Ahb., l, 343-405.
39. Jour. far Math., 127,1904, l16-66.
uATRrcEs Bog
The notion of the rank of a matrix was introduced by Frobeniusao in

lB79 though in connection with determinants. A matrix A with m rows and
z columns (of order m by n) has *-rowed minors of all orders from I (the
elements of ,4 themselves) to the smaller of the two integers z and n inclusive.
A matrix has rank r if and only if it has at least one r-rowed minor whose
determinant is not zero while the determinants of all minors of order greater
than r are zero.
Two matrices A and B can be related in various ways. They are equiva-
lent if there exist two non-singular matrices U and V such that A : UBV.
Sylvester had shown in his work on determinantsal that the greatest common
divisor di of the e-rowed minor determinants ofB equals the greatest common
divisor /, of the i-rowed minor determinants of l. Then H. J. S. Smith,
working with matrices with integral elements, showed a2 that every n:.atrix A
of rank p is equivalent to a diagonal matrix with elements hb h2, . , ., he
down the main diagonal and such that i1 divides i, + l. The quotients
h : dt hs : dzldb ' . . are called the invariant factors of I' Further if
h, : P!q$2" 'P$*
(where thepl are primes) these various powers ptr are the elementary divisors
of ,4. The invariant factors determine the elementary divisors and conversely.
These ideas on invariant factors and elementary divisors, which stem
from Sylvester's and Weierstrass's work on determinants (as noted earlier),
were carried over to matrices by Frobenius in his I B7B paper. The significance
of the invariant factors and elementary divisors for matrices is that the
matrix A is equivalent to the matrix B if and only if ,4 and B have the same
elementary divisors or invariant factors.
Frobenius did further work with invariant factors in his paper of IBTB
and then organized the theory ol invariant factors and elementary divisors
in logical form.a3 The work in the IBTB paper enabled Frobenius to give the
first general proof of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem and to modify the
theorem when some of the latent roots (characteristic roots) of the matrix
are equal. In this paper he also showed that when AB-L :8-11, in which
case there is an unambiguous quotient AlB, then (AlB)-' : BIA and that
(A- r1r - ({1-t, where,47 is the transpose of l.
The subject of orthogonal matrices has received considerable attention.
Although the term was used by Hermite in l854,aa it was not until l87B
that the formal definition was published by Frobenius (see ref. above). A
matrix M is orthogonal if it is equal to the inverse of its transpose, that is, if
40. Jour. fiir Math.,86, 1879, 146-208 :
Ges. Abh,, 1,482-5++.
41. Phil. Mag., (4),1, 1851, I 19-40 : Coll. Math. Papers, 1,219-4O.
:
42. Phil. Trans., l5l, 186l-62, 293-326 Coll. Math. Papers, 1,367-409.
43. Sitzungsber. Akod. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1894, 3l-44 : Ges. Abh., l, 577-90.
44. Cambridge and Dublin Math. Jour.,g' 1854,63-67 : (Euwcs, l, 290-95'
BIo DETERMINANTS AND MATRICES
M : gAtl-r.In addition to the definition, Frobenius proved that if ,9 is a

symmetric matrix and 7, a skew-symmetric one, an orthogonal matrix can
always be written in the form (S - 7)/(S * 7) or more simply (I - 7')l
(I + T).
The notion of similar matrices, like many other notions of matrix theory,
came from earlier work on determinants as far back as Cauchy's. Two square
matrices A and B are similar if there exists a non-singular matrix P such that
B : P -t AP. The characteristic equations of two similar matrices A and' B
are the same and the matrices have the same invariant factors and the same
elementary divisors. For matrices with complex elements Weierstrass proved
this rcsult in his 1868 paper (though he worked with determinants). Since a
matrix represens a liriear homogeneous transformation similar matrices can
be thought of as representing the same trandormation but referred to two
difierent coordinate systems.
Using the notion of similar matrices and the characteristic equation,
{5 showed that a matrix can be transformed to a canonical form'
Jordan
If the characteristic equation of a matrix J is
: ln + Drlo-r + "'+ : 0
"f(f) '',
and if
,f(l) : (I - )1)rr"'(i -,\s)r*,
where thc \ are distinct, then let
100
,(:
&r0
0 0 0 ... ,\,
denote an /,th order matrix. Jordan showed that "I can be transformed to a
similar matrix having the form
00
Jz 0 "'
(:
00 )
This is the Jordan canonical, or normal, form of a matrix.
The similarity transformation from I to B was also treated by Frobenius
under the name of contragredient translormation in his IBTB paper. In the
45. Ttaiti dcs substitutiont, 1870, Book II, 88-249.

MATRTSE5 BtI
same discussion he treated the notion of congruent matrices or cogredient
transformations. This tells us that if I : PTBP then I is congruent with B,
written I
g B. For example, the transformation of matrix I that results in
the simultaneous interchange of the same rows and columns of ,,4 is a con-
gruence transformation- Also, a symmetric matrix ,.4 of rank z can be reduced
by a congruent transformation to a diagonal matrix of the same rankl that is,
dr, o 0 ...
o d,, 0 ...
PTAP :
0 ...
There are many basic theorems on congruent matrices. For example, if S is
symmetric and ^S1 is congruent to S, then 51 is symmeEic and if S is skew
then S, is skew.
In his lB92 paper in the Arnerican Joumal of Matlwmatics Metzler intro-
duced transcendental functions of a matrix, writing each as a power series
in a matrix, He established series for 0M, a-M,log M, sin M, and sin-L M.
Thus
eM: ) Malnl.
4
The ramifications of the theory of matrices are numerous. Matrices have
been used to represent quadratic and bilinear forms. The reduction of such
forms to simple canonical forms is the core of the work on the invariants of
matrices. They are intimately connected with hypernumbers and Cayley in
his lB5B paper developed the idea of treating hypernumbers as matrices.
Both determinants and matrices have been extended to infinite order.
Infinite determinants were involved in Fourier's work of determining the
coefficients ofa Fourier series expansion ofa function (Chap, 28, sec. 2) and
in Hill's work on the solution of ordinary differential equations (Chap. 29,
sec. 7), Isolated papers on infinite determinants were written between these
two outstanding nineteenth-century researches but the major activity
postdates Hill's.
Infinite matrices were implicitly and explicitly involved in the work of
Fourier, Hill, and Poincard, who completed Hill's work. However, the great
impetus to the study of infinite matrices came from the theory of integral
equations (Chap. 45). We cannot devote space to the theory of determinants
and matrices of infinite order.a6
46. See the reference to Bernkopf in the bibliography at end of chapter.
8rz
In the elementary work on matrices the elements are ordinary real
numbers though a great deal of what was done on behalf of the theory
of numbers was limited to integral elements. However, they can be com-
plex numbers and indeed most any other quantities. Naturally, the properties
the matrices themselves possess depend upon the properties of the elements.
Much late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century research has been devoted
to the properties of matrices whose elements are members of an abstract field,
The importance of matrix theory in the mathematical machinery of modern
physics cannot be treated here, but in this connection a prophetic statement
made by Tait is of interest. " Cayley is forging the weapons for future
generations of physicisu."
Bibli.ographg
Bernkopt Michael: "A History of Infinite Matrices," Archioe for History of Exact
Sciences, 4, 1968, 308-58.
Caylen Arthur: The Collccted Matlumatical Papers, 13 vols., Cambridge University
Press (1889-97), Johnson Reprint Corp., 1963.
Feldman, Richard W., Jr. : (Six articles on matrices with various titles), The
Matlumatics Teaehcr, 55, 1962, 482-A4,589-90, 657-59; 56, 1963, 37-38,
I0l-2, 163-64.
Frobenius, F. G.: Gesammehc Abhandlungen,3 vols., Springer-Verlag, 1968.
Jacobi, C. G. l.: Cesammelte We*.c, Georg Reimer, 1884, Vol. 3.
MacDuffee, C. C.: Tlu Theory of Matices, Chelsea, 1946.
Muir, Thomas: Tlu Tluory of Dckrminants in the Historical Order of Deaelopmznt
(1906-23), 4 vols., Dover (reprint), 1960.
List of writings on the theory of matrices, Anur. Jour. of Math.,20, 1898,
225-28.
Sylvester, James Joseph: The Collected Mathematical Papers, 4 vols., Cambridge
University Press, l90t[-12.
Weierstrass, Karlz Mathematische Werke, Mayer und Miiller, 1895, Vol. 2.
3+
The Theory of Numbers in the
Nineteenth Century
It is true that Fourier had the opinion that the principal
object of mathematics was public use and the explanation of
natural phenomena; but a philosopher like him ought to
know that the sole object of the science is the honor of the
human spirit and that under this view a problem of [the
theory of] numbers is worth as much as a problem on the
system of the world. . c. c. J. JAcoBI
l. Introduction
Up to the nineteenth century the theory of numbers was a series of isolated
though often brilliant results. A new era began with Gauss's Disquisitiones
Arithmetimet which he composed at the age of twenty. This great work had
been sent to the French Academy in 1800 and was rejected but Gauss
published it on his own. In this book he standardized the notation; he
systematized the existing theory and extended it; and he classified the
problems to be studied and the known methods olattack and introduced new
methods. In Gauss's work on the theory of numbers there are three main
ideas : the theory of congruences, the introduction of algebraic numbers, and
the theory of forms as the leading idea in Diophantine analysis. This work not
only began the modern theory of numbers but determined the directions ol
work in the subject up to the present time. The Disquisitioner is difficult to
read but Dirichlet expounded it.
Another major nineteenth-century development is analytic number
theory, which uses analysis in addition to algebra to treat problems involving
the integers. The leaders in this innovation were Dirichlet and Riemann.
2. The Theory of Congruences

Though the notion of congruence did not originate with Gauss-it appears in
the work of Euler, Lagrange, and Legendre-Gauss introduced the notation
l. Published l80l : We*e, l.
8r3
Br4 TuE THEoRY oF NUMBERs ISoo-r9oo
in the first section of Dr'squisitiones and used it systematically thereafter. The

basic idea is simple. The number 27 is congruent to 3 modulo 4,
27 = 3modulo4,
because 27 - 3 is exactly divisible by 4. (The word modulo is often ab-
breviated to mod.) In general, if a, b, and rn are integers
a = b modulo m
if a - b is (exactly) divisible by rn or if a and D have the same remainders on

division by z. Then D is said to be a residue of a modulo m and a is a residue
of 6 modulo rz. As Gauss shows, all the residues of a modulo m, for fixed a
and m, are given by a * km where,t : 0, * l, 12, . . ..
Congruences with respect to the same modulus can be treated to some
extent Iike equations. Such congruences can be added, subtracted, and
multiplied. One can also ask for the solution of congruences involving
unknowns. Thus, what values of x satisfy
2x = 25 modulo 12?
This equation has no solutions because 2.r is even and 2x - 25 is odd. Hence
2x - 25 cannot be a multiple of 12. The basic theorem on polynomial
congruences, which Gauss re-proves in the second section, had already been
established by Lagrange.s A congruence of the ath degree
a*n I Bx"-L +... + Mx * N : 0modulol
whose modulus is a prime number p which does not divide I cannot have
more than z noncongruent roots.
In the third section Gauss takes up residues of powers. Here he gives a
proof in terms of congruences of Fermat's minor theorem, which, stated in
terms of congruences, reads: If p is a prime and a is not a multiple ofp then
aP-1 = I modulo p.
The theorem follows fromlhis study of congruences of higher degree, namely,

xo = a rnodulo m
where a and z are relatively prime. This subject was continued by many men
after Gauss.
The fourth section of Disquisitiones treats quadratic residues. lf p is a
prime and a is not a multiple of p and if there exists an x such that x2 = a
modp, then a is a quadratic residue of p; otherwise a is a quadratic non-
residue ofp, After proving some subordinate theorems on quadratic residues
Gauss gave the first rigorous proof of the law of quadratic reciprocity (Chap.
2. Hisr. de I'Acad. de Berlin,24, 1768, 192 ff., pub. 1770 : CEuures,2, 655-726.
TI{E TTIEORY OF CONGRUENCES 8r5
25, sec. 4). Euler had given a complete statement much like Gauss's in one
paper of his Opuscula Analytica of l7B3 (Chap. 25, sec. 4). Nevertheless in
article l5l of his Disquisitiones Ganss says that no one had presented the
theorem in as simple a form as he had. He refers to other work of Euler
including another paper in
the Opuscula and to Legendre's work of 1785.
Of these papers Gauss rightly that the proofs were incomplete.
says
Gauss is supposed to have discovered a proofofthe law in 1796 when he
was nineteen. He gave another proof in the Disquisitiones and later published
four others. Among his unpublished papers two more were found. Gauss
says that he sought many proofs because he wished to find one that could be
used to establish the biquadratic reciprocity theorem (see below). The law
of quadratic reciprocity, which Gauss called the gem of arithmetic, is a basic
result on congruences. After Gauss gave his proofs, more than fifty others
were given by later mathematicians.
Gauss also treated congruences of polynbmials, If .,{ and B are two
polynomials in r with, say, real coefficients then one knows that one can
find unique polynomials Q and .R such that
A: B.Q + R,
where the degree ofR is less than the degree of B. One can then say that two
polynomials A, and A, are congruent modulo a third polynomial P if they
have the same remainder rR on division by P.
Cauchy used this idea 3 to define complex numbers by polynomial
congruences. Thus if;t(x) is a polynomial with real coemcients then under
division by x2 +|
l@): o + &xmodx2 + I
because the remainder is of lower degree than the divisor. Here a and D are
necessarily real by virtue of the division process. If g(x) is another such
polynomial then
cQc):c*dxrr;.odx2+l'
Cauchy now points out that if At, Az, and .B are any polynomials and if
AL: BQt + R1 and Az: BQz * Rz,
then
Al + Az = R1 * rR2 mod -8, and ArA2 = RlRs mod 8.
We can now see readily that
/(*) +g(r) : (a + c) + (b + d)xmodre + I

3. Excrcices d'anolyse et de plrysiqw matMmatiqw, 4, 1847 ,84 ff. : (Euwct, (I ), l0' 312-23 and
(2), 14, 93-120.
Br6 THE THEoRY oF NUMBERS IBoo-Igoo
and since x2 = -l + I that

mod x2
(ad 1ic)'rmod )c2 + l.
"f@)e@): (ac - bd) +
Thus the numb ers a * bx and c + dx combine like complex numbers; that is,
they have the formal properties of complex numbers, x taking the place of i.
Cauchy also proved that every polynomial g('r) not congruent to 0 modulo
*2 + I has an inverse, that is, a polynomial i(r) such that ft(x)g(x) is
congruent to I modulo x2 * 1 .
Cauchy did introduce i for x, i being for him a real indeterminate
quantity. He then showed that for any
"f(i):ooaa,i+a2i2*"'
that
f(i) : oo - az * a4 -..- * (o, - as * as -''')i modulo i2 + l.
Hence any expression involving complex numbers behaves as one of the
form c * di and one has all the apparatus needed to work with complex
expressions. For Cauchy, then, the polynomials in i, with his understanding
about i, take the place of complex numbers and one can put into one class
all those polynomials having the same residue modulo i2 + l. These classes
are the complex numbers.
It is interesting that in 1847 Cauchy still had misgivings about y'J.
He says, " In the theory of algebraic equivalences substituted for the theory
olimaginary numbers the letter i cetses to represent the symbolic sign r/J,
which we repudiate completely and which we can abandon without regret
since one does not know what this supposed sign signifies nor what sense to
attribute to it. On the contrary we rePresent by the letter i a real quantity
but indeterminate and in substituting the sign = lor : we translorm what
has been called an imaginary equation into an algebraic equivalence relative
to the variable i and to the divisor e2 + l. Since this divisor remains the
same in all the formulas one.can dispense with writing it."
In the second decade of the century Gauss proceeded to search for
reciprocity laws applicable to congruences ofhigher degree. These laws again
involve residues of congruences. Thus for the congruence
*+: qnodp
one can define 4 as a biquadratic residue ofp ifthere is an integral value ofr
satisfying the equation. He did arrive at a law of biquadratic reciprocity
(see below) and a law of cubic reciprocity. Much of this work appeared in
papers from l80B to l8l7 and the theorem Proper on biquadratic residues
was given in papers of 1828 and 1832.4
4. Comm, Soc. Gott.,6, 1828, and 7,1832 : Werkt,2,6F92 and 93-148; also pp' 165-78'
THE THEORY OF CONGRUENCES Br7
To attain elegance and simplicity in his theory ofcubic and biquadratic

residues Gauss made use of complex integers, that is, numbers of the form
a * bi with a and b integral or 0. In Gauss's work on biquadratic residues
it was necessary to consider the case where the modulus 1 is a prime of the
forrn 4n * I and Gauss needed the complex factors into which prime
numbers of the form 4n + I can be decomposed. To obtain these Gauss
realized that one must go beyond the domain of the ordinary integers to
introduce the complex integers. Though Euler and Lagrange had introduced
such integers into the theory of numbers it was Gauss who established their
importance.
Whereas in the ordinary theory of integers the units are * I and - I
in Gauss's theory of complex integers the units are * I and + i' A complex
integer is called composite if it is the product of two such integers neither of
which is a unit. Ifsuch a decomposition is not possible the integer is called a
prime. Thus 5 : (I + 2i) (l - 2i) and so is composite, whereas 3 is a
complex prime.
Gauss showed that complex integers have essentially the same properties
as ordinary integers. Euclid had proved (Chap. 4, sec. 7) that every integer is
uniquely decomposable into a product of primes. Gauss proved that this
unique decomposition, which is often referred to as the fundamental theorem
of arithmetic, holds also for complex integers provided we do not regard the
lour unit numbers as different factors. That is, if a : bc : (ib)(-ic), the
two decompositions are the same. Gauss also showed that Euclid's process
fior finding the greatest common divisor of two integers is applicable to the
complex integers.
Many theorems for ordinary primes carry over to the complex primes.
Thus Fermat's theorem carries over in the form: If p be a complex prime
a * bi and ,t any complex integer not divisible by p then
kNe-a : I modulo 1
where .ly'p is the norm (a2 + b2) of p. There is also a law of quadratic
reciprocity for complex integers, which was stated by Gauss in his 1828
PaPer.
In terms of complex integers Gauss was able to state the law of bi-
quadratic reciprocity rather simply. One defines an uneven integer as one
not divisible by I + i. A primary uneven integer is an uneven integer
a + Di such that 6 is even and a + b - I is even. Thus -7 and -5 * 2i are
primary uneven numbers. The law of reciprocity for biquadratic residues
states that if a and B are two primary uneven primes and -,{ and B are their
norms, then
(ff). :, - 1)(1/4x'{-1)(1/4)(8-1)(E)4
8rB THE THEoRY oF NUMBERS IBoo-I9oo
The symbol (c/B)1 has the following meaning: If p is any complex prime
and ,t is any biquadratic residue not divisible by p, then (klp), is the power
i" of i which satisfies the congruence
llNp'rrt4 : I modulo y'
wherein .fy'p ofp' This law is equivalent to the statement:

stands for the norm
The biquadratic characters of two primary uneven prime numbers with
respect to one another are identical, that is, (c/p)a : @1")t, if either of the
primes is congruent to I modulo 4; but if neither of the primes satisfies the
iorrgr,r"t"", then the two biquadratic characters are opposite, that is,
@lil,: -(Fl"),.
this reciprocity
Gauss stated theorem but did not publish his proof'
This was given byJacobi in his lectures at Kcinigsberg in 1836-37. Ferdinand
Gotthold Eisenstein (1823-52), a pupil of Gauss, published five proofs of the
law, of which the first two appeared in 1844.5
For cubic reciprocity Gauss fiound that he could obtain a law by using
the "integers" a * Dp where p is a root of x2 + x I | : 0 and a and b ate
ordinary (rational) integers but Gauss did not publish this result' It was
found in his papers after his death. The law of cubic reciprocity was first
stated byJacobio and proved by him in his lectures at Konigsberg' The first
8
publishJproof is due to Eisenstein.T Upon noting this proofJacobi claimed
ihat it *as precisely the one given in his lectures but Eisenstein indignantly
denied any plagiarism.g There are also reciprocity laws for congruences of
degree greater than four.
3. Algebraic Numbers
The theory of complex integers is a step in the direction ofa vast subject, the
theory of algebraic numbers. Neither Euler nor Lagrange envisioned the
rich possibilities which their work on complex integers opened up' Neither
did Gauss.
The theory grew out of the attempts to prove Fermat's assertion about
xn + g" : 2", The cases z : 3,4, ar.d 5 have already been discussed (Chap'
25, sec, 4). Gauss tried to prove the assertion fot n :7 but failed' Perhaps
because
-he was disgusted with his llailure, he said in a letter of I 816 to
Heinrich W. M. Olbers (1758-1840), " I confess indeed that Fermat's
theorem as an isolated proposition has little interest for me, since a multitude
of such propositions, which one can neither prove nor refute, can easily be
5. Jour, fir Marh., 28, 184+, 53-67 ar.d 22345.

6. Jour. far Math.,2, 1827,6G-69 : Werke,6' 233-37 '
7. Jour. fir Math.,27,1844, 289-310' :
8. Jour. fir Marh.,3O, 1846, 166-82, p. 172 Wuke,6,254-74'
9. Jour. fiir Math.,35, 1847' 131274 (p.273).
ALGEBRAIC NUMBERS 8rg
formulated." This particular case of n : 7 was disposed of by Lam6 ln

1839,10 and Dirichlet established the assertion for n:14.11 However, the
general proposition wzls unproven.
It was taken up by Ernst Eduard Kummer (lBl0-93), who turned from
theology to mathematics, became a pupil of Gauss and Dirichlet, and later
served as a professor at Breslau and Berlin. Though Kummer's major work
was in the theory of numbers, he made beautiful discoveries in geometry
which had their origin in optical problems; he also made imPortant con-
tributions to the study of refraction of light by the atmosphere.
Kummer took ,P + ge wherc p is prime, and factored it into
(x + g)(x + d!)"'(x + ao-t71,
where cr is an imaginarylth root of unity. That is, c"is a root of
(r) ,,p-r+ae-2+...+c*l:0.
This led him to extend Gauss's theory of complex integers to algebraic
numbers insofar as they are introduced by equations such as (l), that is'
numbers of the form
-f(") : ao + atd, +..' + ap_zat-2,

where each a, is an ordinary (rational) integer' (Since a satisfies (l), terms
in a,-1 can be replaced by terms of lower power.) Kummer called the
numbers;l(cr) complex integers.
By 1843 Kummer made appropriate definitions of integer, Prime
integer, divisibility, and the like (we shall give the standard definitions in a
moment) and then made the mistake of assuming that unique factorization
holds in the class of algebraic numbers that he had introduced. He pointed
out while transmitting his manuscript to Dirichlet in lB43 that this alsump-
tion was necessary to prove Fermat's theorem. Dirichlet infiormed him that
unique factorization holds only for certain primes p' Incidentally, Cauchy
and Lam6 made the same mistake of assuming unique factorization for
algebraic numbers. In 1844 Kummerl2 recognized the correctness of
Dirichlet's criticism.
To restore unique factorization Kummer created a theory of ideal
numbers in a series of papers starting in 1844.13 To understand his idea let
us consider the domain of a + b{15, where a and D are integers. In this
domain
6:2.3: (l + r/-sl(r - \/=)
10. Jour. de Math.,5, 1840, 195-211.
ll. Jour. fir Math.,9, 1832, 390-93 : Werkc, l, 189-94.
12. Jour. de Math., 12, 1847 185-212,
'
13. Jour. Jar Math.,35, l8+7, 119-26, 327-67.
8zo THE THEoRY oF NUMBERS r8oo-I9oo
and all four flactors can readily be shor,vn to be prime integers. Then unique
decomposition does not hold. Let us introduce, for this domain, the ideal
numbers o:12, pr:0 + \/=)l\/-2, Fr:0 - t/-sltl1. we see
that 6 : c2p.p2. Thus 6 is now uniquely expressed as the product ol four
factors, all ideal numbers as far as the domain a + bl4 is concerned.la
In terms of these ideals and other primes factorization in the domain is
unique (apart from factors consisting of units). With ideal numbers one can
prove some of the results of ordinary number theory in all domains that
previously lacked unique factorization.
Kummer's ideal numbers, though ordinary numbers, do not belong to
the class of algebraic numbers he had introduced. Moreover, the ideal
numbers were not defined in any general way. As far as Fermat's theorem
is concerned, with his ideal numbers Kummer did succeed in showing that
it was correct for a number of prime numbers. In the first hundred integers
only 37, 59, and 67 were not covered by Kummer's demonstration. Then
Kummer in a paper of 1857 15 extended his results to these exceptional
primes. These results were further extended by Dimitry Mirimanoff (1861-
1945), a professor at the University of Geneva, by perfecting Kummer's
method.l8 Mirimanoff proved that Fermat's theorem is correct for each z
up to 256 if x, y, and z are prime to that exPonent rr.
Whereas Kummer worked with algebraic numbers formed out of the
roots of unity, Richard Dedekind (lB3l-1916), a pupil of Gauss, who spent
fifty years of his life as a teacher at a technical high school in Germany,
approached the problem ofunique factorization in an entirely new and fresh
manner. Dedekind published his results in supplement l0 to the second
edition of Dirichlet's Zahlentheorie ( l87l ) which Dedekind edited. He
extended these results in the supplements to the third and fourth editions of
the same book.l7 Therein he created the modern theory ofalgebraic numbers.
Dedekind's theory of algebraic numbers is a generalization of Gauss's
complex integers and Kummer's algebraic numbers but the generalization is
somewhat at variance with Gauss's complex integers. A number r that is a
root of
(2) asxl * alxn-r +'''+ ar-it * ao: 0,
whe.e\he a,'s are ordinary integers (positive or negative), and that is not
a root ofsuch an equation ofdegree less than z is called an algebraic number
of degree z. Il the coefficient of the highest power of .r in (2) is l, the solutions
are called algebraic integers oldegree z. The sum, difference, and product of
14. With the introduction of the ideal numbers, 2 and 3 are no longer indecomposable,
for 2 = o' and 3: FrFz.
15, Abh. Kani.g. Akad. der Wiss. Berlin, 1858, +l-7+,
16. Jour. fiir Math., l2B, 1905, 4F68.
17. 4th ed., 1894 : wcrke,3,2-222.
Bzr
algebraic integers. are algebraic integers, and if an algebraic integer is a

rational number it is an ordinary integer.
We should note that under the new definitions an algebraic integer can
contain ordinary fractions. Thus (- 13 + V- 115)/2 is an algebraic integer
of the second degree because it is a root of x2 + l3x + 7l : 0. On the other
hand (l - \/=) 12 is an algebraic number of degree 2 but not an algebraic
integer because it is a root of 2x2 - 2x * 3 : 0.
Dedekind introduced next the concept of a number field. This is a
collection F of real or complex numbers such that if cr and p belong to F then
so do cc + F, - p, ap and, il p + 0, cr/p. Every number field contains the
"
rational numbers because if c belongs then so does afa or I and corlsequently
1 + l, I * 2, and so forth. It is not difficult to show that the let of all
algebraic numbers forms a field.
If one starts with the rational number field and 0 is an algebraic number
of degree z then the set formed by combining d with itself and the rational
numbers under the four operations is also a field of degree z. This field may
be described alternatively as the smallest field containing the rational numbers
and 0. It is also called an extension field of the rational numbers. Such a field
does not consist of all algebraic numbers and is a specific algebraic number
field. The notation R(0) is now common. Though one might expect that the
members of R(0) are the quotients rf @)le@ where;f(x) and g(*) are any
polynomials with rational coefficients, one can prove that if 0 is of degree z,
then any member cr of R(d) can be expressed in the form
a : ao|o-L * ar0"-2 *... * an-tt
where the a, are ordinary rational numbers. Moreover, there exist algebraic
integers 0r, 0r, . .. , d, of this field such that all the algebraic integers of the
field are of the form
AfiL+4202+...*An1n,
where the l, are ordinary positive and negative integers.
A ring, a concept introduced by Dedekind, is essentially any collection
of numbers such that if <l and p belong, so do ct * F, o - B, and crB. The
set of all algebraic integers forms a ring as does the set of all algebraic
integers ofany specific algebraic number field.
The algebraic integer a is said to be divisible by the algebraic integer B
if there is an algebraic integer y such that : Py. Ifj is an algebraic integer
"
which divides every other integer of a field of algebraic numbers then j is
called a unit in that field. These units, which include * I and -1, are a
generalization of the units + I and - I of ordinary number theory. The
algebraic integer a is a prime ifit is not zero or a unit and ifany factorization
of cr into py, where p and y belong to the same algebraic number field,
implies that B or y is a unit in that field.
822 TrrE THEoRY oF NUMBERs t8oo-rgoo
Now let us see to what extent the fundamental theorem of arithmetic

holds. In the ring ofall algebraic integers there are no primes' Let us con{der
the ring of inteters in a specific algebraic number field n(0), say the field
a + bJ--\ where a utd , ordinary rational numbers' In this field
unique factorization does not "."
hold. For example,
2r :3.7 : (4 + ^F-S)(+ - t/--s) : (t + 2\/--5)(r - Zt/=57'
Each of these last four factors is prime in the sense that it cannot be expressed
as a product of the form (c + d{A)Q a 7t/--51 with c, d, e, and;fintegral'
On ttre other hand let us consider the field a + b\/6 where a and b are
ordinary rational numbers. If one applies the four algebraic operations to
these ntimbers one gets such numbers. If a and 6 are restricted to integers
one getE the algebraic integers (of degree 2) of this domain' In this domain
we Jn take as an equivalent definition of unit that the algebraic integer
M
is a unit if llM is.lro algebraic integer' Thus l, - l, - 5 2{6' and
"r,
5 + 2\/6 are units. Every integer is divisible by any one of the units'
Further, an algebraic integer of the domain is prime if it is divisible only by
itsclf and the units. Now
6 :2.3 : ^/6.\/-6.
It would seem as though there is no unique decomposition into primes' But
the factors shown are not Primes. In fact
6 : 2.3 : \ft.\/6 : e + {6)Gz + \/6)P + \re)P - t/61'

Each of the last four factors is a prime in the domain and unique decom-
position does hold in this domain.
IntJreringofintegersofaspecificalgebraicnumberfieldfactorization
ofthe algebraic integers into primes is always possible but unique factotization
does rroigerre.ally h-ola. In fact for domains of th" fotrn a + bGD'
whete
D may hive any positive integral value not divisible by a square' the unique
factortation theorem is valid only when D : 1,2, 3,7, 11, 19, 43, 67 ' and
163,atleastforD'suptol0g.lsThusthealgebraicnumbersthemAelvesdo
notpossess the property of unique factorization'
\-
4. The ldeals of Dedeki.nd
Having generalized the notion of algebraic number, Dedekind now under-
took tJ irtor" unique factorization in algebraic number fields by a scheme
quite different f"o.i, Krmmer's. In place of ideal numbers he introduced
possible. see his-
18. H. M. Stark has shown that the above values ofD are the only ones
"OntheProblcmofUniqueFactorizationinComplexQuadraticFields"'Proceedingsof
Symposiain Pure Matlumatics, XII, 4l-56, Amcr' Math' Soc', 1969'
THE IDEALS OF DEDEKIND Bz3
classes of algebraic numbers which he called ideals in honor of Kummer's

ideal numbers.
Before defining Dedekind's ideals let us note the underlying thought.
Consider the ordinary integers. In place ofthe integer 2, Dedekind considers
the class of integers 2m, where n is any integer. This class consists of all
integers divisible by 2. Likewise 3 is replaced by the class 3z of all integers
divisible by 3. The product 6 becomes the collection of all numbers 6p,
where y' is any integer. Then the product 2'3 :6 is replaced by the state-
ment that the class 2m " times " the class 3z equals the class 61. Moreover, the
class 2m is a factor of the class 6p, despite the fact that the former class
'contains the latter, These classes are examples in the ring of ordinary
integers ol what Dedekind called ideals. To follow Dedekind's work one
must accustom oneself to thinking in terms of classes of numbers.
More generally, Dedekind defined his ideals as follows : Let l( be a
specific algebraic number field. A set of integers A of K is said to form an
ideal if when c and p are any two integers in the set, the integers pu * vp,
where p and, v are any other algebraic integers in I(, also belong to the set.
Alternatively an ideal .,4 is said to be generated by the algebraic integers
dLt d2, . . . , ao of K if ..4 consists of all sums
l1c1 * tr2cr2 *'" * lnd,,,
where the 11 are any integers of the field I(. This ideal is denoted by
(or, or, .. .The zero ideal consists ofthe number 0 alone and accordingly
, crn) .
is denoted by (0). The unit ideal is that generated by the number l, that is,
(1). An ideal I is called principal if it is generated by the single integer c,
so that (a) consists of all the algebraic integers divisible by c. In the ring of
the ordinary integers every ideal is a principal ideal.
An example of an ideal in the algebraic number field a * b1/=,
where a and D are ordinary rational numbers, is the ideal generated by the
integers 2 and I + \/=. This ideal consists of all integem of the form
2p + (l + \/=)r, where p and, v are arbitrary integers of the field' The
ideal also happens to be a principal ideal because it is generated by the
number 2 alone in view of the fact that (l + l/-- S)Z must also belong to
the ideal generated by 2.
Two ideals (or, or, .. . , cr) and (Fr, Fr, .. . , po) are equal if every
member of the former ideal is a member ol the latter and conversely. To
tackle the problem of factorization we must first consider the product of two
ideals. The product of the ideal A : (ar,' . ., cr") and the ideal B : (Br, . . ., Br)
of l( is defined to be the ideal
AB : (a$y dr\z, uz|y. . .,
""F ).
dt|r. . .,
It is almost evident that this product is commutative and associative. With'
this definition we may say that .,{ divides .B if there exists an ideal C such that
824 THE THEoRy oF NUMBERS r8oo-rgoo
B : AC. One writes AIB and ,4 is called a factor of B. As already suggested

above by our example ofthe ordinary integers, the elements olB are included
in the elements ofl and ordinary divisibility is replaced by class inclusion.
The ideals that are the analogues of the ordinary prime.. numbers are
called prime ideals. Such an ideal P is defined to be one which has no
f,actors other than itself and the ideal (l), so that P is not contained in any
other ideal of /(. For this reason a prime ideal is also called maximal. All of
these definitions and theorems lead to the basic theorems lor ideals of an
algebraic number field r(. Any ideal is divisible by only a finite number ol
ideals and if a prime ideal divides the product AB of two ideals (of the same
number class) it divides I or B. Finally the fundamental theorem in the
theory ofideals is that every ideal can be factored uniquely into prime ideals.
In our earlier examples of algebraic number fields of the lorrn a + bt/-D,
D integral, we found that some permitted unique factorization of the algebraic
integers of those fields and others did not. The answer to the question of
which do or do not is given by the theorem that the factorization of the
integers of an algebraic number field l( into primes is unique if and only if
all the ideals in r( are principal.
From these examples of Dedekind's work we can see that his theory of
ideals is indeed a generalization of the ordinary integers. In particular, it
furnishes the concepts and properties in the domain of algebraic numbers
which enable one to establish unique factorization.
Leopold Kronecker (1823-91), who was Kummer's favorite pupil and
who succeeded Kummer as professor at the University o[ Berlin, also took
up the subject of algebraic numbers and developed it along lines similar to
Dedekind's. Kronecker's doctoral thesis " On Complex Units," written in
1845 though not published until much later,ls was his first work in the
subject. The thesis deals with the units that can exist in the algebraic number
fields created by Gauss.
Kronecker created another theory of fields (domains of rationality).20
His field concept is more general than Dedekind's because he considered
fields o[ rational functions in any number of variables (indeterminates).
Specifically Kronecker introduced (lBBl) the notion ol an indeterminate
adjoined to a field, the indeterminate being just a new abstract quantity.
This idea of extending a field by adding an indeterminate he made the
cornerstone of his theory of algebraic numbers. Here he used the knowledge
that had been built up by Liouville, Cantor, and others on the distinction
between algebraic and transcendental numbers. In particular he observed
that if * is transccndental over a field i( (r is an indeterminate) then the field
19. Jour. ifar Math.,93, 1882, l-52 : Werke, 1,5-71.
20. " Grundziige ciner arithmctischcn Thcoric der algebraischcn Gr<issen," Jour. fir
Moth-, 92,, 1882, l-122 : Werke, 2, 237-3871' also published seParately by G Reimer,
1882.
THE IDEALS OF DEDEKIND Bz5
r((r) obtained by adjoining the indeterminate )c to K, that is, the smallest

field containing r( and r, is isomorphic to the field ,K[x] of rational
functions in one variable with coefficients in r(.21 He did stress that the in-
determinate was merely an element of an algebra and not a variable in the
sense of analysis.22 He then showed in lBB723 that to each ordinary prime
numberp there corresponds within the ring Q(x) of polynomials with rational
coefficients a prime polynomial 1(r) which is irreducible in the rational
field Q. By considering two polynomials to be equal if they are congruent
modulo a given prime polynomial p(x), the ring of all polynomials in Q('r)
becomes a field of residue classes possessing the same algebraic properties
as the algebraic number field l((3) arising from the field I( by adjoining
a root 6 of p(x) :0. Here he used the idea Cauchy had already employed
to introduce imaginary numbers by using polynomials congruent modulo
x2 + l. In this same work he showed that the theory of algebraic numbers
is independent of the fundamental theorem of algebra and of the theory of
the complete real number system.
In his theory of fields (in the " Grundziige ") whose elements are
formed by starting with a field 1( and then adjoining indeterminates
)cy rcz, . .. , xn, Kronecker introduced the notion of a modular system that
played the role of ideals in Dedekind's theory. For Kronecker a modular
system is a set M of those polynomials in z variables )rr !€2,. .., xo such that
if P, and P, belong to the set so does P, I P2 and. ifP belongs so does QP
where Q is any polynomial in *r, xz, . . ., xn.
A basis gf a modular system M is any set of polynomials By 82. . . of
M such that every polynomial of .4y' is expressible in the form
.R1.B1 + RtBz *'..,
where.R1, R2,.,. are constants or polynomials (not necessarily belonging to
M). The theory of divisibility in Kronecker's general fields was defined in
terms of modular systems much as Dedekind had done with ideals.
The work on algebraic number theory was climaxed in the nineteenth
century by Hilbert's famous report on algebraic numbers.24 This report is
primarily an account of what had been done during the century. However,
Hilbert reworked all of this earlier theory and gave new, elegant, and power-
ful methods of securing these results. He had begun to create new ideas in
algebraic number theory from about 1892 on and one of the new creations
on Galoisian number fields was also incorporated in the report. Subsequently
Hilbert and many other men extended algebraic number theory vastly.
21. Werke, 2, 253.
22. We*e,2, 339.
23. Jour. filr Math., 100, 1887, 490-510 : Werlce,3, 2ll-40.
24. " Die Theorie der algebraischen Zahlkiirper" (The Theory of Algebraic Number
Fields), Jahres. der Deut. Math.-Ver.,4, 1897,175-546 : Ges. Abh., l, 63-363.
826 TrrE THEoRY oF NUMBERs r8oo-r9oo
Ilowever, these later developments, relaiive Galoisian fields, relative Abelian

number fields and class fields, all of which stimulated an immense amount of
work in the twentieth century, are of concern primarily to specialists.
Algebraic number theory, originally a scheme for investigating the
solutions of problems in the older theory of numbers, has become an end in
itself. It has come to occuPy a position in between the theory of numbers
and abstract algebra, and now numben theory and modern higher algebra
merge in algebraic number theory. Of course algebraic number theory has
also produced new theorems in the ordinary theory of numbers.
5. Tlu Tluory oJ Forms

Another class of problems in the theory of numbers is the representation of
integers by forms. The exPression
(3) axl + 2bry + cyz,
whcrein a, b, and a are integral, is a binary form because two variables are
involved, and it is a quadratic form because it is of the second degree' A
number M is said to be represented by the form if for specific integral values
of a, b, c, x, and, y thc above expression equals M. One problem is to find the
set of numbers M that are rePresentable by a given form or class of forms.
The converse problem, glven M and given a,'b, and, c or some class of a, 6,
and a, to find the values of * and y that represent ,t1, is equally imPortant.
The latter problem belongs to Diophantine analysis and the former may
equally well be considered part of the same subject.
Euler had obtained some special results on these problems. However,
Lagrange made the key discovery that if a number is representable by one
form it is also representable by many other forms, which he called equivalent.
The latter could be obtained from the original form by a change ofvariables
(4) x:a*'l9y', y:yx'1-69'
wherein d, P, y, and 6 are integral and cr6 - Fy : 1.26 In particular,
Lagrange showed that for a given discriminant (Gauss used the word
determinant) b2 - u there is a finite number of forms such that each form
vrith that discriminant is equivalent to one of this finite number' Thus all
forms with a given discriminant can be segregated into classes, each class
consisting of forms equivalent to one member of that class. This result and
some inductively established results by Legendre attracted Gauss's attention.
In a bold step Gauss extracted from Lagrange's work the notion of equiva-
lence of forms and concentrated on that. The fifth section of his Disquisitiones,
by far the largest section, is devoted to this subject.
25. Noua Mim. dc I'Acad. dc Bcrlin, 1773,263-312; and 1775,323 ff. -- (Euttres,3' 693-795 '
THE THEORY OF FORMS Bz7
Gauss systematized and extended the theory of forms. He first defined

equivalence of forms, Let
F:axz*2bxg+cgz
be transformed by means of (4) into the form
F' : a'x'z * 2b'x'g' + c'y'2.

Then
b,z _ a,c, : (b2 _ rc)(a6 _ py)z.
If now (cD - Fi' : l, the discriminants of the two forms are equal. Then
the inverse of the transformation (4) will also contain integral coefficients
(by Cramer's rule) and will transform F' into F. F and F' are said to be
equivalent. If cr6 - Fy : l, F and F' are said to be properly equivalent,
and if cE - Fy : - 1, then F and F' are said to be improperly equivalent.
Gauss proved a number of theorems on the equivalence of forms. Thus
if F is equivalent to ,F'' and .F.' to F' then F is equivalent to F'. If F is equiva-
lent to F', any number M representable by F is representable by F' and in
as many ways by one as by the other. He then shows, if Fand F' are equiva-
lent, how to find all the transformations from F into F'. He also finds all the
representations ofa given number M by a form F, provided the values ofr
and y are relatively prime.
By definition two equivalent forms have the same value for their
discriminant D : b2 - ac. However, two forms with the same discriminant
are not necessarily equivalent. Gauss shows that all forms with a given D
can be segregated into classes I the members of any one class are properly
equivalent to each other. Though the number of forms with a given D is
infinite, the number of classes for a given D is finite. In each class one fofm
can be taken as representative and Gauss gives criteria for the choice of a
simplest representative. The simplest form of all those with determinant D
has a : l, b : 0, c : -D. This he calls the principal liorm and the class to
which it belongs is called the principal class.
Gauss then takes up the composition (product) of forms. If the form
F: nYz + 2BXY + CYz

is transformed into the product of two forms
-f: ax' * 2bxy * cyz and f' : a'x'2 * 2b'x'y' + c'g'z
by the substitution
17: prxx' + p2xg' + ?sx'! * !qU!'

Y : qrxx' * qzxy' I qsx'! + q4y!'
BzB THE THEoRY oF NUMBERS r8oo-r9oo
then F is said to be transformable into f' . If further the six numbers

?tTa - Q#2, ltqs - Qfis, !l.l,a, - Qt?E, ?z|s - QzPs, ?29+ - 8z?+, ?s?q - |sP+
do not have a common divisor, then F is called a composite of the forms;f

andf'.
Gauss was then able to Prove an essential theorem: Ifland g belong to
the same class and;f' and g' belong to the same class, then the form composed
o{ J and f ' will belong to the same class as the form composed of g and g'.
Thus one can speak of a class of lorms composed of two (or more) given
classes. In this composition ofclasses,.the principal class acts as a unit class;
that is, if the class I( is composed with a principal class, the resulting class
will be 1(.
Gauss now turns to a treatment of ternary quadratic forms
Ax2 + 2Bxg + Cg2 + 2Dxz * 2EYz 1F22,
where the coemcients are integers, and undertakes a study very much like
what he has just done for binary forms. The goal as in the case of binary
forms is the representation of integers. The theory of ternary forms was not
carried far by Gauss.
The objective of the entire work on the theory of forms was, as already
noted, to produce theorems in the theory of numbers. In the course of his
treatment of forms Gauss shows how the theory can be used to prove any
number of theorems about the integers including many that were previously
proved by such men as Euler and Lagrange. Thus Gauss proves that any
prime number of the form 4n * | can be represented as a surn of squares in
one and only one way. Any prime number of the form Bz * I or Bz + 3
can be represented in the form x' + 2!2 (for positive integral ,r and y) in
one and only one way. He shows how to find all the representations of a
given number M by the given form ax2 + 2bxg + cy2 provided the dis-
criminant D is a positive non-square number. Further ifFis a primitive form
(the values of a, b, and r are relatively prime) with discriminant D and' if p
is a prime number dividing D, then the numbers not divisible by p which
can be represented by F agree in that they are all either quadratic residues
ofy' or non-residues ofP.
Among the results Gauss drew from his work on ternary quadratic
forms is the first proof of the theorem that every number can be represented
as the sum of three triangular numbers. These, we recall, are the numbers
1, 3, 6, I0, ",. -..

",...,n' {
He also re-proved the theorem already proved by Lagrange that any Positive
integer can be expressed as the sum of four squares. Apropos of the former
result, it is worth noting that Cauchy read a paper to the Paris Academy in
ANALYTIc NUMBER THEORY BZg
l815 which established the general result first asserted by Fermat that every
integer is the sum of ft or fewer fr-gonal numbers'26 (The general *-gonal
number is n * (n2 - n)(k - 2)12.)
The algebraic theory ofbinary and ternary quadratic forms as presented
by Gauss has an interesting geometrical analogue which Gauss himself
initiated. In a review which appeared in the Gduingische Gelehrte Anzeigen of
183027 of a book on ternary quadratic forms by Ludwig August Seeber
(1793-1855) Gauss sketched the geometrical representation of his forms and
classes of forms.28 This work is the beginning of a development called the
geometrical theory of numbers which first gained prominence when Hermann
Minkowski (1864-1909), who served as professor of mathematics at several
universities, published his Geometrie der Zahlen (1896).
The subject of forms became a major one in the theory of numbers ol
the nineteenth century. Further work was done by a host of men on binary
and ternary quadratic forms and on forms with more variables and of higher
degree.2s
6. Analytic Number Theory

One of the maior developments in number theory is the introduction of
analytic methods and of analytic results to express and prove facts about
integers. Actually, Euler had used analysis in number theory (see below)
and Jacobi used elliptic functions to obtain results in the theory of con-
gruences and the theory of forms.so However, Euler's uses of analysis in
number theory were minor and Jacobi's number-theoretic results were
almost accidental by-products of his analytic work'
The first deep and deliberate use of analysis to tackle what seemed to be
a clear problem of algebra was made by Peter Gustav Lejeune-Dirichlet
(1805-59), a student of Gauss and Jacobi, professor at Bieslau and Berlin,
and then successor to Gauss at G6ttingen. Dirichlet's great work' the
Vorlesungen i)ber Zahlentheorza,sl expounded Gauss's Disquisitiones and gave his
own contributions.
The problem that caused Dirichlet to employ analysis was to show that
every arithmetic sequence
a,a * b,a +.2b, a + 3b,"',a ! nb, " ',
26. Mim. de I'Acad. des Sci,, Paris, (l), 14, l8l3-15, 177-220 : CEuures, (2),6' 320-53'
27. Werke,2, 188-196.
28. Felix Klein in lis Enhtticklung (see the bibliography at the end of this chaPtcr),
pp. 35-39, expands on Gauss's sketch.
29. See works of Smith and Dickson, listed in the bibliography, for further details'
30. Jour. fiir Math., 37, 1848, 6l-94 and 221*54 : Werke, 2, 2 19-88.
31. Published 1863; the second, third, and fourth editions of 1871, 1879, and 1894 were
supplemented extensively by Dedekind.
83o THE THEoRY oF NUMBERs I8oo-r9oo
where a and D are relatively prime, contains an infinite number of primes.

Eulers2 and Legendres3 made this conjecture and in lB0B Legendre3a gave
a proof that was faulty. In lB37 Dirichletss gave a correct proof. This result
generalizes Euclid's theorem on the infinitude ol primes in the sequence
1,2,9, . ... Dirichlet's analytical proof was long and complicated. Specifically
it used what are now called the Dirichlet series, )f,=r ann-", whetein the an
and. zare complex. Dirichlet also proved that the sum ofthe reciprocals of
the primes in the sequence {a + nb} diverges. This extends a result of Euler
on the usual primes (see below). In l84l 36 Dirichlet proved a theorem on
the primes in progressions of complex numbers a * Di'
The chief problem involving the introduction of analysis concerned the
function zr(.r) which represents the number of primes not exceeding.r. Thus
z(8) is 4 since 2, 3, 5, and 7 are prime and z( I I ) is 5. As r increases the
additional primes become scarcer and the problem was, What is the proper
analytical expression for zr(.r) ? Legendre, who had proved that no rational
expression would serve, at one time gave up hope that any expression could
be found. Then Euler, Legendre, Gauss, and others surmised that
(s) ri- 11?x

,- * xllog
: r.
Gauss used tables of primes (he actually studied all the primes up to
3,000,000) to make conjectures about z(r) and inferred3T that zr(r) differs
little from li aqbg r. He knew also that
a:l.,s'
,r,.lx xllog x
,r+ - - ,.
In lB4B Pafnuti L. Tchebycheff (l82l-94), a professor at the University

of Petrograd, took up the question of the number of prime numbers less
than or equal to x and made a big step forward in this old problem. In a key
paper, "Sur les nombres premiers" ss Tchebycheff proved that
t..' T@)
xltog x
.A..
where 0.922 < AL < I and I < A2 < 1.105, but did not prove that the
function tends to a limit. This inequality was improved by many mathe-
32. OPuscula Analytica,2, 1783.
33. Min. de I'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1785, 465-559, pub. 1788.
3*. Thiorie dcs rcmbres,2nd ed., p. 404'
35. Abh. Kinig. Akad. der Wiss., Berlin, 1837, 45-81 and 108-10 : Werke, 1,30742.
36. Abh. Kdnig. Akad. der Wiss., Berlin, 1841, l4l-Ol : Werke,2' 509-32.
37. llerke, 2, 4++-+7.
38. Min. Acad. Sci. St. Peters.,7, 1854, l5-33; also Jour. de Math., (l), 17, 1852.366-90:
(Ewres, l, 5l-70.
ANALYTIC NUMBER THEORY 83r
maticians including Sylvester, who among others doubted in lBBl that the
function had a limit. In his work Tchebycheff used what we now call the
Riemann zeta function,
{(") _
-.Ln'
s-l
though he used it for real values ofz. (This series is a special case ofDirichlet's
series.) Incidentally he also proved in the same Paper that for n > 3 there is
always at Ieast one prime between n and 2n - 2.
The zeta function for real z apPeafi in a work of Eulerss where he
introduced
((s) :.2* : -F)

I \ -1
I=J(,
Here the pn's are prime numbers. Euler used the function to Prove that the
sum of the reciprocals of the prime numbers diverges. For s an even positive
integer Euler knew the value of ((s) (Chap. 20, sec. 4). Then in a paper read
in 1749a0 Euler asserted that for real s
((l - s) : 2(2.)-" cos

f, l(s)((s)'
He verified the equation to the point where, he said, there was no doubt
about it. This relation was established by Riemann in the 1859 paper
referred to below. Riemann, using the zeta function for complex z, attempted
to prove the prime number theorem, that is, (5) above.al He pointed out
that to further the investigation one would have to know the complex zeros
of ((z). Actually, ((z) fails to converge for x < I when z : x 1 iY,but the
values of ( in the halfplane x < I are defined by analytic continuation' He
expressed the hypothesis that all the zeros in the strip 0 < x < I lie on the
line r : 1/2. This hypothesis is still unproven.az
In 1896 Hadamard,ao by applying the theory of entire functions (of a
complex variable), which he investigated for the purpose of proving the
prime number theorem, and by proving the crucial fact that l(z) f 0 tor
x : l, was able finally to Prove the prime number theorem' Charles-Jean
de la vallde Poussin (1866-1962) obtained the result for the zeta function
39. Comm. Acad. Sci. Pebop',9,1737, 160-88, pub. 1744 : O\era, (l), 14,2lM4'
40. Hist. de l'Acad. Berlin, 17,1761,83-106, pub' 1768
de :
Oleru, (l), 15' 70-90'
41. Monatsbcr. Berliner Akd.' 1859, 671-80 : Werke' 145-55'
42. In l9l4 Godfrey H. Hardy proved (Conp. Reul., 158, 1914, l0l2-14 = Coll' Popas'Z,
6-9) that an infinity of zeros of {(z) lie on the line r = }.
43. Bull. Soc. Math. dc France, 14, 1896, 199-220 : (Euovcs, 1,189-210'
83e THE TrrEoRy oF NUMBERs r8oo-r9oo
and proved the prime number theorem at the same time.aa This theorem is a
central one in analytic number theory.
Bibliographg
Bachmann, P.: " Uber Gauss' zahlentheoretische Arbeiten," Nathrichten Kdnig.
Ges. dcr Wiss. zu Gdtt., l9l l, 455-508; also in Gauss: Werle, lO2, l-69.
Bell, Eric T.: Tlu Deoclopment of Mathematics.,2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, 1945, Chaps.
9-10.
Carmichael, Robert D. : " Some Recent Researches in the Theory of Numbers,"
Amn. Math. Monthlg,39, 1932, 139-60.
Dedekind, Richard: Uber dil Thzorie dcr ganzzn algebaischen Zahlcn (repint of tJne
eleventh supplement to Dirichlet's Zahlentheorie), F, Vieweg und Sohn, 1964.
Gcsammelte matlumatischc l[e*e, 3 vols., F. Vieweg und Sohn, 1930-32,
"Sur la thdorie des nombres entiers algdbriques," Bull. des Sci. Math,, (l),
I l, 1876, 278-48; (2), t, 1877, 1741,69-92, 14444,20748 : Ges. math.
We*c, 3, 263-96.
Dictson, Leonard E.: History oJ the Theory of Numbers, 3 vols., Chelsea (reprint),
1951.
Studbs in the Tluory of Numbers (1930), Chelsea (reprint), 1962.
" Fermat's Last Theorem and the Origin and Nature of the Theory of
Algebraic Numbers," Annals. of Math., (2), 18, 1917, l6l-87.
..................._ et al.: Algebraic Numbns, Repoil of Committee ott Algebraic Numbers,
-: National
Research Council, 1923 and 1928; Chelsea (reprint), 1967.
Dirichlet, P. G. L.: Werke (1889-97); Chelsea (reprint), 1969, 2 vols.
Dirichlet, P. G. L., and R. Dedekind,: Vorlesungen iiber Zahlentheorie, 4th ed., 1894
(contains Dedekind's Supplement); Chelsea (reprint), 1968.
Gauss, C. F.: Disquisitiones Arilhmeticae, trans. A. A. Clarke, Yale University Press,
1965.
Hasse, H.: "Bericht i-iber neuere Untersuchungen und Probleme aus der Theorie
der algebraischen Zahlkiirper," Jahres. der Deut. Math.-Vnein., 35, 1926,
l-55 and 36, 1927, 233-311.
Hilbert, David: "Die Theorie der algebraischen Zahlk6rper," Jahres. der Deut.
Math.-Verein., 4, 1897,175-546 : Gesammelte Abhandlungen, l, 63-363.
Klein, Felix: Vorlesungen iiber die Enlwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundtrt,
Chelsea (reprint), 1950, Vol. 1.
Kronecker, Leopold: Werke, 5 vols. (1895-1931), Chelsea (reprint), 1968. See
especially, Vol.2, pp. l-10 on the law of quadratic reciprocity.
Grundzilge einer arithmetischen Theorie der algebraischen Gri)ssen, G. Reimer,
1BB2 : Jour. filr Math.,92, lBBll82, l-122 : lilerke, 2, 237-388.
Landau, Edmund : Handbuch der lxhre aon der Verteilung der Primzahlen, B. G. Teubner,
I909, Vol. l, pp. l- 55.
Mordell, L. J. : "An Introductory Account of the Arithmetical Theory of Algebraic
44. Ann. Soc. Sci. Bruxelles, (l), 20 Part II, 1896, 183-256, 281-397.
Bge
Numbers and its Recent Development," Arrur. Math. Soc. Bull., 29, 1923,
44s-63.
Reichardt, Ilans, ed. : C. F. Gauss, I*ben und Werk, }{aude und Spenersche Verlags-
buchhandlung, 1960, pp. 38-91; also B. G. Teubner, 1957.
Scott, J. F.; A History of Mathematics, Taylor and Francis, 1958, Chap. 15.
Smith, David E,: A Source Book in Mailumatics, Dover (reprint), 1959, Vol. I'
to7-48.
Smith, H. J. S.: Collected Mathematical Papers, 2 vols. (1890-94), Chelsea
(reprint), 1965. Vol. I contains Smith's rteparl on the Theory of Numbers,
which is also published separately by Chelsea, 1965.
Vandiver, H. S. : " Fermat's Last Theorem," Amer, Math, Monthlg,53, 1946, 555-78.
3s
The Revival of Projective
Geometry
The doctrines of pure geometry often, and in many questions'
give a simple and natural way to penetrate to the origin of
truths, to lay bare the mysterious chain which unites them,
and to make them known individually, luminously and
completely. MICIIEL CIrASLES
l. Tlu Rercwal of Interut in Geometry

For over one hundred years after the introduction of analytic geometry by
Descartes and Fermat, algebraic and analytic methods dominated geometry
almost to the exclusion of synthetic methods. During this period some men,
for example the English mathematicians who persisted in trying to found
the calculus rigorously on geometry, produced new results synthetically'
Geometric methods, elegant and intuitively clear, always captivated some
minds. Maclaurin, especially, preferred synthetic geometry to analysis. Pure
geometry, then, retained some life even if it was not at the heart of the most
vital developments of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the early
nineteenth century several great mathematicians decided that synthetic
geometry had been unfairly and unwisely neglected and made a positive
effort to revive and extend that approach.
One of the new champions of synthetic methods, Jean-Victor Poncelet,
did concede the limitations of the older Pure geometry. FIe says, " While
analytic geometry offers by its characteristic method general and uniform
means of proceeding to the solution of questions which present themselves . . .
while it arrives at results whose generality is without bound, the other

[synthetic geometry] proceeds by chance; its way depends completely on the
sagacity of those who employ it and its results are almost always limited to the
particular figure which one considers." But Poncelet did not believe that
synthetic methods were necessarily so limited and he proposed to create new
ones which would rival the power of analytic geometry.
Michel Chasles ( 1793-1880) was another great Proponent ofgeomerical
8z+
THE RENEWAL oF TNTEREsT rN cEoMETRy 8gs
methods. In his Apergu historique ntr l'origine et le dCoeloppement des mCthofus cn

giomdtrie (1837), a historical study in which Chasles admitted that he ignored
the German writers because he did not know the language, he states that the
mathematicians of his time and earlier had declared geometry a dead
language which in the future would be ofno use and influence. Not only does
Chasles deny this but he cites Lagrange, who was entirely an analyst, as
saying in his sixtieth year,l when he had encountered a very difficult problem
of celestial mechanics, " Bven though analysis may have advantages over the
old geometric methods, which one usually, but improperly, calls synthesis,
there are nevertheless problems in which the latter apPear more advanta-
geous, partly because of their intrinsic clarity and partly because of the
elegance and ease of their solutions. There are even some problems for which
the algebraic analysis in some measure does not suffice and which, it aPPears'
the synthetic methods alone can master." Lagrange cites as an example the
very difficult problem of the attraction of an ellipsoid of revolution exerted
on a point (unit mass) on its surface or inside. This problem had been solved
purely synthetically by Maclaurin.
Chasles also gives an extract from a letter he received from Lambert
Adolphe Quetelet (1796-1874), the Belgian astronomer and statistician'
Quetelet says, " It is not proper that most of our young.mathematicians
value pure geometry so lightly." The young men complain of lack of
generality of method, continues Q.uetelet, but is this the fault of geometry or
of those who cultivate geometry, he asks. To counter this lack of generality,
Chasles gives two rules to prospective geometers. They should generalize
special theorems to obtain the most general result, which should at the same
time be simple and natural. Second, they should not be satisfied with the proof
of a result if it is not part of a general method or doctrine on which it is
naturally dependent. To know when one really has the true basis ficr a
theorem, he says, there is always a principal truth which one will recognize
because other theorems will result from a simple transformation or as a
ready consequence. The great truths, which are the foundations ofknowledge,
always have the characteristics of simplicity and intuitiveness.
Other mathematicians attacked analytic methods in harsher language'
Carnot wished " to free geometry from the hieroglyphics of analysis." Later
in the century Eduard Study (1862-1922) referred to the machine-like
process of coordinate geometry as the " clatter of the coordinate mill'"
The objections to analytic methods in geometry were based on more than
a personal preference or taste. There was, first of all, a genuine question of
whether analytic geometry was really geometry since algebra was the essence
of the method and results, and the geometric significance of both were
hidden. Moreover, as Chasles pointed out, analysis through its formal
l. Now. Mim. de I'Acad. da Beilin, 1773, 12148, pub. 1775 = CDw)rcs,3, 617-58'
8g6 THE REvrvAL oF pRoJECTTvE GEoMETRv
processes neglects all the small steps which geometry continually makes. The
quick and perhaps penetrating steps of analysis do not reveal the sense of
what is accomplished. The connection between the starting point and the
final result is not clear. Chasles asks, "Is it then sufficient in a philosophic
and basic study of a science to know that something is true if one does not
know why it is so and what place it should take in the series oftruths to which
it belongs ? " The geometric method, on the other hand, permits simple and
intuitively evident proofs and conclusions.
There was another argument which, first voiced by Descartes, still
appealed in the nineteenth century. Geometry was regarded as the truth
about space and the real world. Algebra and analysis were not in themselves
significant truths even about numbers and functions. They were merely
methods of arriving at truths, and artificial at that. This view of algebra and
analysis was gradually disappearing. Nevertheless the criticism was still
vigorous in the early nineteenth century because the methods of analysis
were incomplete and even Iogically unsound. The geometers rightly ques-
tioned the validity of the analytic proofs and credited them with merely
suggesting results. The analysts could retort only that the geometric proofs
were clumsy and inelegant.
The upshot ofthe controversy is that the pure geometers reasserted their
role in mathematics. As if to revenge themselves on Descartes because his
creation ofanalytic geometry had caused the abandonment ofpure geometry,
the early nineteenth-century geometers made it their objective to beat
Descartes at the game of geometry. The rivalry between analysts and
geomdiers grew so bitter that Steiner, who was a pure geometer, threatened
to quit writing fpr Crelle's Journal fiir Mathematik if Crelle continued to pub-
lish the analytical papers of Pliicker.
The stimulus to revive synthetic geometry came primarily from one man,
Gaspard Monge. We have already discussed his valuable contributions to
analytic and differential geometry and his inspiring Iectures at the Ecole
Polytechnique during the years 1795 to 1809. Monge himself did not intend
to do more than bring geometry back into the fold of mathematics as a
suggestive approach to and an interpretation of analytic results. He sought
only to stress both modes of thought. However, his own work in geometry
and his enthusiasm for it inspired in his pupils, Charles Dupin, Frangois-
Joseph Servois, Charles-Julien Brianchon, Jean-Baptiste Biot (1774-1862),
Lazare-Nicholas-Marguerite Carnot, and Jean-Victor Poncelet, the urge to
revitalize pure geometry. \
Monge's contribution to pure geometry was his I:il$i de giomCtrie
This subject shows how to project orthogonally a three-
descriptioe (1799).
dimensional object on two planes (a horizontal and a vertical one) so that
from this representation one can deduce mathematical properties of the
object. The scheme is useful in architecture, the design of fortifications, per-
SYNTHETIC EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY 827
spective, carpentry, and stonecutting and was the first to treat the projection
ol a three-dimensional figure into two two-dimensional ones. The ideas
and method of descriptive geometry did not prove to be the avenue to subse-
quent developments in geometry or, for that matter, to any other part of
mathematics.
2. Sgntlwtic Euclidean Geometry

Though the geometers who reacted to Monge's inspiration turned to pro-
jective geometry, we shall pause to note some new results in synthetic
Euclidean geometry. These results, perhaps minor in significance, never-
theless exhibit new themes and the almost inexhaustible richness of this old
subject. Actually hundreds of new theorems were produced, of which we can
give just a few examples.
Associated with every triangle ABC arc nine particular points, the
midpoints of the sides, the feet olthe three altitudes, and the midpoints of the
segments which join the vertices to the point of intersection of the altitudes'
All nine points lie on one circle, called the nine-point circle. This theorem
was first published by Gergonne and Poncelet.2 It is often credited to Karl
Wilhelm Feuerbach (1800-34), a high-school teacher, who published his
proof in Eigenschaften einiger merkwi)rdigen Punkte des geradlinigen Dreiecks
(Properties of Some Distinctive Points ol the Rectilinear Triangle, lB22). In
this book Feuerbach added another fact about the nine-point circle' An
excircle (escribed circle) is one which is tangent to one of the sides and to
the extensions of the other two sides. (The center of an escribed circle lies
on the bisectors of two exterior angles and the remote interior angle')
Feuerbach's theorem states that the nine-point circle is tangent to the
inscribed circle and the three excircles.
In a small book published in 18 t 6, Uber einige Eigenschaften des ebenen
geradlinigen Dreiecks (On Some Properties of Plane Rectilinear Triangles),
Crelle showed how to determine a point P inside a triangle such that the
lines .joining P to the vertices ol the triangle and the sides of the triangle
make equal angles. That is, {1 : +2 : +3 in Figure 35.1. There is also
a point P' different lrom P such that {P'AC : 4P'CB : 4P'BA'
The conic sections, we know, were treated definitively by Apollonius as
sections of a cone and then introduced as plane loci in the seventeenth
century. ln lB22 Germinal Dandelin (1794-1847) proved a very interesting
theorem about the conic sections in relation to the cone.3 His theorem states
that iltwo spheres are inscribed in a circular cone so that they are tangent to a
given plane cutting the cone in a conic section, the points of contact of the
2. Ann. de Math., 11,1820121'205-20.

3- Notu. Mim. de l'Acad. Roy. des Sci', Bruxelles, 2' 1822' 169-202'
838 THE REVML OF PROJECTM GEOMETRY
Figure 35. I
Figurc 35.2
spheres with the plane are the foci of the conic section, and the intersections
of the planc with the planes of the circles along which the spheres touch the
cone are the directrices of the conic.
Another interesting theme pursued in the nineteenth century was the
solution of maximum and minimum problems by purely geometric methods,
that is, without relying upon the calculus of variations. Of the several
theorems Jacob Steiner proved by using synthetic methods, the most
famous result is the isoperimetric theorem: Of all plane figures with a given
perimeter the circle bounds the greatest area, Steiner gave various proofs.a
Unfortunately, Steiner assumed that there exists a curve that does have
maximum area. Dirichlet tried several times to persuade him that his
proofs were incomplete on that account but Steiner insisted that this was
self-evident. Once, however, he did write (in the first of the 1842 papers):6
"and the proof is readily made if one assumes that there is a largest figure."
The proof of the existence of a maximizing curve bamed mathe-
maticians for a number of years until Weierstrass in his lectures of the 1870s
at Berlin resorted to the calculus ofvariations.o Later Constantin Caratheo-
dory (1873-1950) and StudyT in a joint paper rigorized Steiner's proofs
without employing that calculus. Their proofs (there were two) were direct
rather than indirect as in Steiner's method. Hermann Amandus Schwarz,
who did great work in partial differential equations and analysis and who
4. Jour. filr Math., 18, 1838, 281-96; and 24, 1842,83-162, 189-250; the 1842 papers are
in his Gcs, We*2, 2, 177-308.
5. Ges. Wcrkc, 2, 197.
6. Werke, 7, 25?-64, 301-2.
7. Math. Ann., 68, 1909, 133-40 : Caratheodory, Ges. math. Schtiften, 2, 3-ll.
SYNT}IETIC EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY Bgg
Figure 35.3
served as a professor at several universities including Gdttingen and Berlin,

gave a rigorous proof for the isoperimetric problem in three dimensions.s
Steiner also proved (in the first of the lB42 papers) that of all triangles
with a given perimeter, the equilateral has the greatest,area. Another of his
resultss states that if A, B, and C are three given points (Fig. 35.2) and if
each of the angles of triangle lBCis less than 120', then the point Pfor which
PA + PB * PCis a minimum is such that each of the angles at P is 120'. If,
however, one angle of the triangle, say angle l, is equal to or larger than
120o, then P coincides with l. This result had been proven much earlier by
Cavalieri (Exercitationcs Geometricae Sex, 1647) but it was undoubtedly
unknown to Steiner. Steiner also extended the result to z points.
Schwarz solved the following problem: Given an acute-angled triangle,
consider all triangles such that each has its vertices on the three sides of the
original triangle; the problem is to find the triangle that has least perimeter.
Schwarz proved synthetically 10 that the vertices of this triangle of minimum
perimeter are the feet of the altitudes of the given triangle (Fig. 35.3).1r
A theorem novel for Euclidean geometry was discovered in 1899 by
Frank Morley, professor of mathematics at Johns Hopkins University, and
proofs were subsequently published by many men.l'The theorem states that
if the angle trisectors are drawn at each vertex of a triangle, adjacent
trisectors meet at the vertices of an equilateral triangle (Fig. 35.4). The
novelty Iies in the involvement of angle trisectors. Up to the middle of the
nineteenth century no mathematician would have considered such lines
because only those elements and figures that are constructible were regarded
as having legitimacy in Euclidean geometry. Constructibility guaranteed
8. K6ilg. G.s. der Wiss. zu Gdtt., 1884, I-13 -- Ges. math. Abh.'
Nachtichten 2' 32740-
9. Monatsben Berliner Akad-, 1837, l+4 : Ges. Werke,2, 93 and 729-31.
10. Paper unpublished, Ges. Math. Abh.' 2, 344-45.
ll. Schwarz's proof can be found in Richard Courant and Herbert Robbins, lUhat Is
Mathemalics?, Oxford University Press, 1941, pp. 346-49. A proof using the calculus was
given by J. F. dc' Toschi di Fagnano (l7lF97) in the Acla Eruditotum, 1775, p.297.
There were less elegant geometrical proofs before Schwarz's.
12. For a proof and references to published proofs see H. S. M. Coxeteq lilrodwtion lo
Geomctry, Joho Wiley and Sons, 1961, pp.23-25.
84o THE RE\/ML OF PROJECTM GEOMETRY
Figure 35.4
existence. However, the conception ofwhat established existence changed as

we shall see more clearly when we examine the work on the foundations of
Euclidean geometry.
A number of efforts were directed toward reducing the use of straight-
edge and compass along the lines initiated by Mohr and Mascheroni (Chap.
12, sec. 2). In his Traiti of 1822 Poncelet showed that all constructions
possible with straightedge and compass (except the construction of circular
arcs) are possible with straightedge alone provided that we are given a
fixed circle and its center. Steiner re-proved the same result more elegantly in
a small book, Die geometrischen Constructionen ausgeflhrt mittclst der geradên
Linie ud cincs festcn Kreises (The Geometrical Constructions Executed by
Means of the Straight Line and a Fixed Circle).l3 Though Steiner intended
the book for pedagogical purposes, he does claim in the prelace that he will
establish tll.e conjecture which a French mathematician had expressed.
The brief sampling above of Euclidean theorems established by synthetic
methods should not leave the reader with the impression that analytic
geometric methods were not also used. In fact, Gergonne gave analytic
proofs of many geometric theorems which he published in the journal he
founded, the Annales de Mathimatiqucs.
3. The Reaiaal of Synthetic Projectiae Geometrg

The major area to which Monge and his pupils turned was projective
geometry. This subject had had a somewhat vigorous but shortJived burst
of activity in the seventeenth century (Chap. 14) but was submerged by the
rise of analytic geometry, the calculus, and analysis. As we have already
noted, Desargues's major work of 1639 was lost sight of until 1845 and
Pascal's major essay on conics (1639) was never recovered. Only La Hire's
books, which used some of Desargues's results, were available. What the
nineteenth-century men learned from La Hire's books they often incorrectly
credited to him. On the whole, however, these geometers were ignorant of
Desargues's and Pascal's work and had to re-create it.
13. Published 1833: Werke, 1,461-522.
TrrE REVTVAL OF SYNTHETIC PROJECTTVE GEOMETRY 84,
Figure 35.5
The revival of projective geometry was initiated by Lazare N. M. Carnot

(1753-1823), a pupil of Monge and father ofthe distinguished physicist Sadi
Carnot. His major work was Giomitrie de position (1803) and he also contributed
the Essai sur la thiorie- des transersales (1806). Monge had espoused the joint
use of analysis and pure geometry, but Carnot refused to use analytic
methods and started the championship of pure geometry. Many of the ideas
we shall shortly discuss more fully are at least suggested in Carnot's work.
Thus the principle that Monge called contingent relations and which became
known also as the principle of correlativity and more commonly as the
principle of continuity is to be found there. To avoid separate figures for
various sizes of angles and directions of lines Carnot did not use negative
numbers, which he regarded as contradictory, but introduced a complicated
scheme called " correspondence of signs."
Among the early nineteenth-century workers in projective Eeometry we
shall just mention FranEois-Joseph Servois and Charles-Julien Brianchon
(1785-1S64), both of whom made applications of their work to military
problems. Though they aided in reconstructing, systematizing' and extending
old results, the only new theorem of consequence is Brianchon's Ilamous
result,la which he proved while still a student at the Ecole. The theorem
states that if there are six tangents to a conic (Fig. 35.5), thus forming a
circumscribed hexagon, the three lines, each of which joins two opposite
vertices, pass through one point. Brianchon derived this theorem by using
the pole-polar relationship.
The revival of projective geometry received its main impetus from
Poncelet (1788-1867). Poncelet was a pupil of Monge and he also learned
much from Carnot. While serving as an officer in Napoleon's campaign
against Russia, he was captured and spent the year lBl3-I4 in a Russian
prison at Saratoff. There Poncelet reconstructed without the aid of any
books what he had learned from Monge and Carnot and then proceeded to
create new results. He later expanded and revised this work and published
14, Jour de I'Ecole Poly.,6, 1806,297-311.
B4z THE REVIVAL OF PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY
it the Traitc des propriltis projectiaes des fgures (1822). This work was his
as
chief contribution to projective geometry and to the erection of a new
discipline. In his later life he was obliged to devote a great deal of time to
government service, though he did hold professorships for limited periods.
Poncelet became the most ardent champion of synthetic geometry and
even attacked the analysts. He had been lriendly with the analyst Joseph-
Diez Gergonne (1771-1859) and had published papers in Gergonne's
Annahs dc Mathimatiqucs, but his attacks were soon directed to Gergonne also.
Poncelet was convinced of the autonomy and importance of pure geometry.
Though he admitted the power of analysis he believed that one could give
the same power to synthetic geometry. In a paper of l8l8, published in
Gergonne's Annales,rs he said that the power of analytic methods lay not in
the use of algebra but in its generality and this advantage resulted from the
fact that the metric properties discovered ficr a typical figure remain ap-
plicable, other than fior a possible change of sign, to all related figures which
spring from the typical or basic one. This generality could be secured in
synthetic geometry by the principle of continuity (which we shall examine
shortly).
Poncelet was the first mathematician to appreciate fully that projective
geometry was a new branch of mathematics with methods and goals of its
own. Whereas the seventeenth-century projective geometers had dealt with
specific problems, Poncelet entertained the general problem o[ seeking all
properties of geometrical figures that were common to all sections of any
projection of a figure, that is, remain unaltered by projection and section'
This is the theme that he and his successors took up. Because distances and
angles are altered by projection and section Poncelet selected and developed
the theory ofinvolution and of harmonic sets ofpoints but not the concept of
cross ratio. Monge had used parallel projection in his work; like Desargues,
Pascal, Newton, and Lambert, Poncelet used central projection, that is,
projection from a point. This concept Poncelet elevated into a method
of approach to geometric Problems' Poncelet also considered projective
transformation from one space hgure to another, ofcourse in purely geometric
form. Here he seemed to have lost interest in projective ProPerties and was
more concerned with the use of the method in bas-relief and stage design.
His work centers about three ideas. The first is that of homologous
figures. Two figures are homologous if one can be derived from the other by
one projection and a section, which is called a perspectivity, or by a sequence
of projections and sections, that is, a projectivity. In working with homol-
ogous figures his plan was to find for a given figure a simpler homologous
figure and by studying it find properties which are invariant under projection
15. Ann. tlc Math.,8, l8l7/18, l4l-55. This paper is reprinted in Poncelet's Applications
d'arulgsc ct de giomitrie (1862-64)' 2,464-76.
THE RErv'ML OF SYNTHETIC PROJECTM CEOMETRY B4z
and section, and so obtain properties of the more comPlicated figure. The
essence of this method was used by Desargues and Pascal, and Poncelet in
his Traiti praised Desargues's originality in this and other respects.
Poncelet's second leading theme is the principle of continuity. In his
Traiti he phrases it thus: "Ifone figure is derived from another by a con-
tinuous change and the latter is as general as the former, then any property of
the first figure can be asserted at once for the second figure." The determina-
tion of when both figures are general is not explained. Poncelet's principle
also asserts that if a figure should degenerate, as a hexagon does into a
pentagon when one side is made to approach zero, any property of the
original figure will carry over into an appropriately worded statement for the
degenerate figure.
The principle was really not new with Poncelet. In a broad philosophical
sense it goes back to Leibniz, who stated in 1687 that when the differences
between two cases can be made smaller than any datum in the given, the
differences can be made smaller than any given quantity in the result. Since
Leibniz's time the principle was recognized and used constantly. Monge
began the use of the principle of continuity to establish theorems. He wanted
to prove a general theorem but used a special position of the figure to Prove
it and then maintained that the theorem was true generally, even when some
elements in the figures became imaginary. Thus to prove a theorem about a
line and a surface he would prove it when the line cuts the surface and then
maintain that the result holds even when the line no longer cuts the surf;ace
and the points of intersection are imaginary. Neither Monge nor Carnot,
who also used the principle, gave any justification ofit.
Poncelet, who coined the term " principle of continuity," advanced the
principle as an absolute truth and applied it boldly in his Traiti. To "demon-
strate" its soundness he takes the theorem on the equality of the products of
the segments of intersecting chords ofa circle and notes that when the point
ofintersection moves outside the circle one obtains the equality ofthe Products
of the secants and their external segments. Further, when one secant becomes
a tangent, the tangent and its external segment become equal and their
product continues to equal the product of the other secant and its external
segment. All ofthis was reasonable enough, but Poncelet applied the principle
to prove many theorems and, like Monge, extended the principle to make
assertions about imaginary figures. (We shall note some examples later.)
The other members of the Paris Academy of Sciences criticized the
principle of continuity and regarded it as having only heuristic value.
Cauchy, in particular, criticized the principle but unfortunately his criticism
was directed at applications made by Poncelet wherein the principle did
work, The critics also charged that the confidence which Poncelet and others
had in the principle really came from the fact that it could be justified on an
algebraic basis. As a matter of fact, the notes Poncelet made in prison show
B++ THE REvrvAL oF pRoJEcrrvE GEorlrETRy
that he did use analysis to test the soundness ol the principle. These notes,
incidentally, were written up by Poncelet and published by him in two
volumes entitled Applications d'analgse et de giomltrie ( 1862-64) which is
really a revision ol his Traiti of lB22, and in the later work he does use
analytic methods. Poncelet admitted that a proof could be based on algebra
but he insisted that the principle did not depend on such a proof. However, it
is quite certain that Poncelet relied on the algebraic method to see what
should be the case and then afErmed the geometric results using the principle
as a justification.
Chasles in his Apergu defended Poncelet. Chasles's position was that the
algebra is an a posteriori proof of the principle. However, he hedged by
pointing out that one must be careful not to carry over from one figure to
another any property which depends essentially on the elements being real or
imaginary. Thus one section of a cone may be a hyperbola, and this has
asymptotes. When the section is an ellipse the asymptotes become imaginary.
Ilence one should not prove a result about the asymptotes alone because
these depend upon the particular nature of the section. Also one should not
carry the results for a parabola over to the hyperbola because the cutting
plane does not have a general position in the case of the parabola. Then he
discusses the case of two intersecting circles which have a common chord.
When the circles no longer intersect, the common chord is imaginary. The
fact that the real common chord passes through two real points is, he says,
an incidental or a contingent property. One must define the chord in some
way which does not depend on the fact that it passes through real points
when the circles intersect but so that it is a permanent property of the two
circles in any position. Thus one can define it as the (real) radical axis, which
means that it is a line such that from any point on it the tangents to the two
circles are equal, or one can define it by means ofthe property that any circle
drawn about any point ofthe line as a center cuts the two circles orthogonally.
Chasles, too, insisted that the principle of continuity is suited to treat
imaginary elements in geometry. He first explains what one means by the
imaginary in geometry. The im4ginary elements pertain to a condition or
state ofa figure in which certain parts are nonexistent, provided these parts
are real in another state ofthe figure. For, he adds, one cannot have any idea
of imaginary quantities except by thinking of the related states in which the
quantities are real. These latter states are the ones which he called " acci-
dental" and which furnish the key to the imaginary in geometry. To prove
results about imaginary elements one has only to take the general condition
of the figure in which the elements are real, and then, according to the
principle of accidental relations or the principle of continuity, one may
conclude that the result holds when the elements are imaginary- " So one sees
that the use and the consideration of the imaginary are completely justified."
The principle of continuity was accepted during the nineteenth century as
THE REvrvAL oF syNTHETrc pRoJEcrrvE cEoMETRy B+S
intuitively clear and therefore having the status of an axiom. The geometers
used it freely and never deemed that it required proof.
Though Poncelet used the principle of continuity to assert results about
imaginary points and lines he never gave any general definition of such
elements. To introduce some imaginary points he gave a geometrical
definition which is complicated and hardly perspicuous. We shall under-
stand these imaginary elements more readily when we discuss them from an
algebraic point ofview. Despite the lack of clarity in Poncelet's approach he
must be credited with introducing the notion of the circular points at
infinity, that is, two imaginary points situated on the line at infinity and
common to any two circles.lB He also introduced the imaginary spherical
circle which any two spheres have in common. He then proved that two
real conics which do not intersect have two imaginary common chords, and
two conics intersect in four points, real or imaginary'
The third leading idea in Poncelet's work is the notion ofpole and polar
with respect to a conic. The concept goes back to Apollonius and was used
by Desargues (Chap. 14, sec. 3) and others in the seventeenth-century work
on projective geometry. AIso Euler, Legendre, Monge, Servois, and Brian-
chon had already used it. But Poncelet gave a general formulation of the
transformation from pole to polar and conversely and used it in his TraitC of
lB22 and in his " M€moire sur la th6orie g6n€rale des polaires rdciproques "
presented to the Paris Academy in 182411 as a method of establishing many
theorems.
One of Poncelet's objectives in studying polar reciprocation with
respect to a conic was to establish the principle of duality. The workers in
projective geometry had observed that theorems dealing with figures lying
in one plane when rephrased by replacing the word "point" by "line" and
"line" by "point" not only made sense but proved to be true. The reason
for the validity of theorems resulting from such a rephrasing was not clear,
and in fact Brianchon questioned the principle. Poncelet thought that the
pole and polar relationship was the reason.
llowever, this relation required the mediation of a conic. Gergonne 18
insisted that the principle was a general one and applied to all statements and
theorems except those involving metric properties. Pole and polar were not
needed as an intermediary supporting device. He introduced the term
"duality" to denote the relationship between the original and new theorem.
He also observed that in three-dimensional situations point and plane are
dual elements and the line is dual to itself.
To illustrate Gergonne's understanding of the principle of duality let us
examine his dualization of Desargues's triangle theorem. We should note
16. Traitd, l, 48.
17. Jour. far Math.,4, 1829, l-71.
lB. Ann. de Math., 16, 1825-26, 209-31.
8+6 THE REvrvAL oF PRoJEcrrvE GEoMETRY
first what the dual ofa triangle is. A triangle consists ofthree points not all on
the same line, and the lines joining them. The dual figure consists of three
Iines not all on the same Point,,and the points joining them (the points of
interscction). The dual figure is again a triangle and so the triangle is called
self-dual. Gergonne invented the scheme of writing dual theorems in double
columns with the dual alongside the original proposition.
Now let us consider Desargues's theorem, where this time the two
triangles and the point O lie in one plane , and let us see what results when we
interchange point and line. Gergonne in the 1825-26 paper already referred
to wrotc this theorem and its dual as follows:
Dcsogtus's Tluoren Dual of Dcsargucs's Tlumcm

If wc havc two trianglcs such that If we have two triangles such that
lincs joiuing corre- points which are the joins of corre'
sponding vcrtices pass through one Point sponding sides lie on one line
O, then O, then
corrcaponding sides interscct in corresponding vertices are joined by
thrce pointr on one straight line. three lines going through one point.
Here the dual theorem is the converse of the original theorem'

Gtrgonne's formulation of the general principle of duality was somewhat
vague and had deficiencies. Though he was convinced it was a universal
principle, he could not justify it and Poncelet rightly objected to the defi'
ciencies. Also he disputed with Gergonne over priority of discovery of the
principlc (which really belongs to Poncelet) and even accused Gergonne of
plagiarism. Ilowever, Poncelet did rely upon pole and polar and would not
grant that Gcrgonne had taken a step forward in recognizing the wider
application of the principle. Later discussions among Poncelet, Gergonne,
Mobi*, Chasles, and Plficker clarified the principle for all, and M<ibius in
his Dcr barycmtrisctu Cahul and Plfrcker, later, gave a good statement of the
relationship of the principle of duality to pole and polar: The notion of
duality is independent of conics and quadric forms but agrees with pole and
polar when the latter can be used. The logical justification of the general
principle
- of duality was not supplied at this time.
The synthetic development of projective geometry was furthered by
Jacob Steiner (1796-1863)' He is the first ofa German school
of geometers
who took over French ideas, notably Poncelet's, and favored synthetic
methods to the extent of even hating analysis. The son of a Swiss farmer, he
himself worked on the farm until he was nineteen years old. Though he was
largely self-educated he ultimately became a professor at Berlin' In his
yor.rg". years he was a teacher in Pestalozzi's school and was impressed by
ihe import.ncc of building up the geometric intuition' It was Pestalozzi's
principle to get the student to cr-eate the mathematics with the lead of the
t"u"hir and the use of the Socratic method. Steiner went to extremes' He
THE REVML OF SYNTTTETIC PROJECTM OEOMETRY B+7
Figure 35.6
Figure 35.7
taught geometry but used no figures, and in training doctoral candidates

he darkened the room. In his own later work Steiner took over theorems
and proofs published in English and other journals and gave no indication
in his own publications that his results had already been established. He had
done good original work when younger and sought to maintain his reputation
for productivity.
His major work was Syslam atische Entwicklung dcr Abhangiglait geomctrisclun
Gestahcn aon einandtr (Systematic Development of the Dependence of Geo-
metric Forms on One Another, 1832) and his chief principle was to use
projective concepts to build up more complicated structures from simple ones
such as points, lines, pencils oflines, planes, and pencils ofplanes. His results
were not especially new but his method was.
To illustrate his principle we shall examine his now standard projective
method of defining the conic sections. One starts (Fig. 35.6) with two pencils
of lines (families of concurrent lines), say h artd pB, that are perspectively
related through a pencil of points on a line l, and the pencils p, and pz that
are perspectively related by means of a pencil of points on another line z.
Then the pencils 1, and p, are said to be projectively related. The lines
marked a in the pencil with center at P, and the pencil with center at P, are
examples of corresponding lines of the projectivity between the two pencils
pt and P2. A conic is now defined as the set ofPoints ofintersection ofall pairs
of corresponding lines of the two projective pencils. Thus P is a point on the
B4B THE RBvrvAL oF PRoJEcrrvE GEoMETRY
conic. Moreover, the conic passes through P1 and, P2 (Fig. 35.7)' In this
manner Steiner built up the conics or second degree curves by means of the
simpler forms, pencils of lines. Flowever, he did not identify his conics with
sections of a cone.
He also built up the ruled quadrics, the hyperboloid ofone sheet and the
hyperbolic paraboloid, in'a similar manner, making projective correspond-
ence the basis of his definitions. Actually his method is not sufficiently
general for all of projective geometry.
In his proofs he used cross ratio as a fundamental tool. However, he
ignored imaginary elements and referred to them as "the ghosts" or the
'ishadows of geometry." He also did not use signed quantities though
M<ibius, whose work we shall soon examine, had already introduced them'
Steiner used the principle ol duality from the very outset of his work'
Thus he dualized the definition of a conic to obtain a new structure called
a line curve. If one starts with two projectively (but not perspectively)
related pencils of points then the family of lines (Fig. 35.8) joining the
corresponding points of the two pencils is called a line conic. To distinguish
such families of lines, which also describe a curve' the usual curve as a locus
of points is called a point curve. The tangent lines of a point curve are a line
curve and in the case of a conic do constitute the dual curve. Conversely
every line conic envelopes a point conic or is the collection of tangents of a
point conic.
With Steiner's notion of a dual to a point conic, one can dualize many
theorems. Let us take Pascal's theorem and form the dual statement. We
shall write the theorem on the left and the new statement on the right.
Pascal's Thcorem Dual of Pascal's Theorem
ar.d' If we take six lines a, b, c, d, e, and'
If we take six points, A, B,C, D, E,
.F on the point conic, then the lines ;fon the line conic, then the points
which join Aall,dB and D and E which join a and b and dande are
meet in a point P; the lines joined by the line 1; the points
which join B and C and E andF which join D and e and e andf are
meet in a point Q; joined bY the line q;
the lines which join C ar,d D and F the points which join c atd d and f
and ,4 meet in a point .R. and a are joined by the line r'
The three points P, Q, and R lie on The three lines p, q, and r are on
one line l. one Point I.
Figure 14.12 of Chapter 14 illustrates Pascal's theorem. The dual theorem is

the one that Brianchon had discovered by means of the pole and polar
relationship (Fig. 35.5 above). Steiner, like Gergonne, did nothing to estab-
lish the logical basis for the principle of duality. However, he developed
projective geometry systematically by classiflying figures and by noting the
dual statements as he proceeded. He also studied thoroughly curves and
surflaces of the second degree.
THE REVryAL OF SYNTHETIC PROJECTTVE GEOMETRY 8+g
Figure 35.8
Michel Chasles, who devoted his entire life to geometry, followed up on

the work ofPoncelet and Steiner, though he did not personally know Steiner's
work because, as we have noted, Chasles could not read German' Chasles
presented his own ideas in his Traiti de giomitrie suphieure (1852) arrd' Traiti
ies sections coniques (IBGS). Since much of Chasles's work either unintentionally
duplicated Steiner's or was superseded by more general concepts' we shall
note just a few major results that are due to him.
Chasl.. got the idea of cross ratio from his attempts to understand the
lost work of Euclid, Porisms (thotgh Steiner and M<ibius had already re-
introduced it). Desargues, too, had used the concept, but Chasles knew only
what La Hire had written about it. chasles did learn at some time that the
idea is also in Pappus because in Note IX of his Apergu (p' 302) he refers to
1e is that four
Pappus's use of the idea' One of Chasles's results in this area
fixej points ofa conic and any fifth point ofthe conic determine four lines
with the same cross ratio.
In lB2B Chasles'o gave the theorem: Given two sets of collinear pointS
in one-to-one correspondence and such that the cross ratio ofany four points
on one line equals that of the corresponding points on the other, then the
linesjoining corresponding points are tangent to a conic that touches the two
given lines. This result is the equivalent ofsteiner's definition ofa line conic,
L.".rrr" the cross ratio condition here ensures that the two sets of collinear
points are projectively related and the lines joining corresponding points are
the lines of Steiner's line conic.
chasles pointed out that by virtue olthe principle ofduality Iines can be
as fundamental as points in the development of plane projective geometry
and credits Poncelet and Gergonne with being clear on this point. chasles
also introduced new terminology. The cross ratio he called anharmonic
ratio. He introduced the term homography to describe a transformation of a
plane into itself or another plane, which carries points into points and lines
into lines. This term covers homologous or projectively related figures' He
19. Conespondance mathlmatiqw et plrysique,5, 1A29,6-22'
20. Correspondaue mathimatique et ph4siqw,4, 1828' 363-71'
8so THE REVIVAL OF PROJECTIVE CEOMETRY
Figurc 35.9
added the condition that the transformation must preserve cross ratio but
this latter fact can be proved. The transformation that carries points into
lincs and lines into points he called a correlation.
Though he defended pure geometry Chasles thought analytically but
presented his proofs and results geometrically. This approach is called the
" mixed method " and was used later by others.
By 1850 the general concepts and goals of projective geometry as
distinguished from Euclidean geometry were clear; nevertheless the logical
relationship of the two geometries was not clarified. The concept of length
was used in projective geometry from Desargues to Chasles. In fact the
concept of cross ratio was defined in terms of length. Yet length is not a
projective concept because it is not invariant under projective transformation.
Karl Georg Christian von Staudt (1798-1867), a professor at Erlangen who
was interested in foundations, decided to free projective geometry from
dependence on length and congruence. The essence of his plan, presented in
his Gcomctrir dn Lage (Geometry of Position, 1847), was to introduce an
analogue of length on a projective basis. His scheme is called "the algebra
of throws." One chooses three arbitrary points on a line and assigns to them
the symbols 0, l, o. Then by means of a geometric construction (which in
itself comes from M<ibius)-a " throw "-a symbol is attached to any
arbitrary point P.
To see what the construction amounts to in Euclidean geometry
suppose we start with the points labelled 0 and I on a line (Fig. 35.9).
Through the point M on a parallel line draw 0M and then draw I iy' parallel
to 0M. Now draw lM and draw .l[2 parallel to lM. lt is immediate that
0l : l2 because opposite sides ofa parallelogram are equal. Thus one carries
over the length 0l to 12 by a geometric construction.
Now to treat the projective case we start with three points 0, l, oo (Fig.
35.10). The point oo lies on 1.", the line at infinity, but this isjust an ordinary
line in projective geometry. Now pick a point M and draw a " parallel " to
THE REVTAL oF syNTrrETrc pRoJEcrrvE GEoMETRv 85,
the line 0I through ,r11. This means that the line through .&/ must meet the
line 0l at co and so we draw Mo. Now draw 0M and prolong it to /-. Next
we draw through I a " parallel " to 0M. This means the " parallel " through
I must meet 0M on I*. We thereby get the line lP and this determines .tr[.
Now draw lM and prolong it until it meets /- at Q. The line through iI
parallel to lM is Q.l[ and where it meets 0l we get a point which is labeled 2.
By this type of construction we can attach " rational coordinates " to
points on the line 0lo. To assign irrational numbers to points on the line one
must introduce an axiom of continuity (Chap. 4l). This notion was not well
understood at that time and as a consequence von Staudt's work lacked
rigor.
Von Staudt's assignment of coordinates to the points of a line did not
involve length. His coordinates, though they were the usual number symbols,
served as systematic identification symbols for the points. To add or subtract
such " numbers " von Staudt could not then use the laws of arithmetic.
Instead he gave geometric constructions that defined the operations with
these symbols so that, for example, the sum of the numbers 2 and 3 is the
number 5. These operations obeyed all the usual laws of numbers. Thus his
symbols or coordinates could be treated as ordinary numbers wen though
they were built up geometrically.
With these labels attached to his points von Staudt could define the
cross ratio offour points. If the coordinates of these points are x1, r21 .rsl zrrd
xn, then the cross ratio is defined to be
*t-*slxr-x,
xr - xal x, - x4'
Thus von Staudt had the fundamental tools to build up projective geometry
without depending on the notions of length and congruence.
A harmonic set of four points is one for which t}re cross ratio is - l. On
the basis of harmonic sets von Staudt gave the fundamental definition that
two pencils of points are projectively related when under a one-to-one
correspondence of their members a harmonic set corresponds to a harmonic
set. Four concurrent lines form a harmonic set if the points in which they meet
an arbitrary transversal constitute a harmonic set of points. Thus the pro-
jectivity of two pencils of lines can also be defined. With these notions von
Staudt defined a collineation of the plane into itself as a one-to-one trans-
formation of point to point and line to line and showed that it carries a set
of harmonic elements into a set of harmonic'elements.
The principal contribution of von Staudt in his Geomctric dzr Lagc was to
show that projective geometry is indeed more fundamental than Euclidean.
Its concepts are logically antecedent. This book and his Bcitriigc zur Gcorrurtc
der Lagc (Conributions to the Geometry of Position, 1856, 1857, 1860)
revealed projective geometry as a subject independent of distance. However,
852 THE RE\/ML OF PROJECTM GEOMETRY
he did use the parallel axiom ol Euclidean geometry, which from a logical
standpoint was a blemish because parallelism is not a projective invariant.
This blemish was removed by Felix Klein.2l
4. Algebruic Proiutiae GeometrY

While the synthetic geometers were developing projective geometry, the
algebraic geometers pursued their methods of treating the same subject' The
first of the new algebraic ideas was what are now called homogeneous co-
ordinates. One such scheme was created by Augustus Ferdinand Mcibius
(1790-1868), who like Gauss and Hamilton made his living as an astronomer
but devoted considerable time to mathematics. Though Mobius did not take
sides in the controversy on synthetic versus algebraic methods his con-
tributions were on the algebraic side.
His scheme for representing the points of a plane by coordinates
introduced in his major wotk, Der barycentrisclu Calcul,22 was to start with a
fixed triangle and to take as the coordinates of any point P in the plane the
amount of -u* which must be placed at each of the three vertices of the
triangle so that P would be the center of gravity of the three masses' When
p lies outside the triangle then one or two ofthe coordinates can be negative.
If the three masses are all multiplied by the same constant the point P
remains the center of gravity. Hence in M6bius's scheme the coordinates of a
point are not unique I only the ratios of the three are determined' The same
scheme applied to points in space requires four coordinates' By writing the
equations of and surfaces in this. coordinate system the equations
"r*.,
beco-e homogeneous I that is, all terms have the same degree' We shall see
examples of the use of homogeneous coordinates shortly'
Mribius distinguished the types of transformations from one plane or
space to another. If corresponding figures are equal, the transformation is a
and if they are similar, the transformation is a similarity' Next
"org*"n""
in jenerality is the transformation that preserves parallelism though not
length or shape and this type is called affine (a notion introduced by Euler) '
The most general transformation that carries lines into lines he called a
collineation. Mtibius proved in Der bargcentrische Calcul that every collineation
is a projective transformation; that is, it results from a sequence ofperspectivi-
ties. His proof assumed that the transformation is one-to-one and continuous,
but the continuity condition can be replaced by a weaker one' He also gave
an analytical rePresentation of the transformation. As Mobius pointed out'
orr" consider invariant properties of figures under each of the above
"orid
types of transformations.
21. Math. Ann.,6, 1873, 11245: Ges. Abh.,l,3ll-43. See also Chap' 38, sec' 3'
22. Published 1827 : lilerke, l, l-388.
Bss
Figure 35.1 I
M6bius introduced signed elements in geometry not only for the line
segments but for areas and volumes. Consequently he was able to give a
complete treatment of the notion of the signed cross ratio of four points on a
Iine. He also showed that the cross ratio of four Iines of a pencil can be
expressed in terms of the sines of the angles at the vertex P (Fig' 35' I 1) by
sin APB lsin BPD

fivFe lileFD
and this ratio is the same as the cross ratio of the four points A, B, C, and D
cut out on any transversal to the lines of the pencil. Hence cross ratio is
unaltered by projection and section. Mobius had many other ideas which he
developed slowly and did not push very far.
The man who gave the algebraic approach to projective geometry its
efficacy and vitality isJulius Phicker (t80l-68). After serving as a professor
of mathematics at several institutions until 1836, he became a professor of
mathematics and physics at Bonn' a position he held for the rest of his life.
Pliicker was primarily a physicist and in fact an experimental physicist in
which activity he made many notable discoveries. From 1863 on he again
devoted himself to mathematics.
Pliicker, too, introduced homogeneous coordinates but in a manner
different from Mribius's. His first notion, trilinear coordinates,2s was also
presented in the second volume of his Analytisch-geometrische Entwickelungen
(1828 and l83l). He starts with a fixed triangle and takes the coordinates of
any point P to be the signed perpendicular distances from P to the sides ofthe
triangle; each distance can be multiplied by the same arbitrary constant.
Later in the second volume he introduced a special case which amounts to
regarding one line ofthe triangle as the line at infinity. This is equivalent to
replacing the usual rectangular Cartesian coordinates x and y by x : xrlx"
and g : xrlx" so that the equations of curves become homogeneous in
*r, xr, and 13. The latter notion is the one which became more widely used.
23. Jour. fiir Math., 5, 1830, l-36 : Wiss. Abh., l, l2'l-58.
854 THE REvIVAL oF PRoJEcrrvE cEoMETRY
By using homogeneous coordinates and Euler's theorem on homo-

genoous functions, which states that if f(txr, tx2, tx") : tlf(xy x2, *.) then
*r*,af * *#, * * #" : 4f(x1, x2, xg),

Plicker was able to give elegant algebraic representations of geometric ideas'
Thus if;f(*1, xz, xg) :0 is the equation of a conic with (xr, xr, xs) as the
coordinates of a point on the conic then
:0
#.r,*f{,-;*ff".;
can be interpreted, when 17, lz, ls are the running coordinates, as the
equation of thc tangent at the point (xr, xr,4) or, when xy *27 *e are the
running coordinates, as the equation of the polar line of the arbitrary point
(4, ,lz, li with respect to the conic.
Using homogeneous coordinates Pltcker gave the algebraic formulation
of the infinitely distant line, the circular Points at infinity, and other notions.
In tlre homogeneous coordinate system (xb xr, xs) the equation of the
infinitely distant line is r. : g. This line is not excePtional in projective
gcomctry, but in our visualization of the geometric elements each normal
point of tlre Euclidean plane is at a finite position given by x : xrlxs and
! : xzlxs and so we are obliged to think of points on rs : 0 as infinitely
distant.
Tbe equation of a circle
(r-o)'+(y-b)2:r'
becomes on the introduction of homogeneous Cartesian coordinates 11, *2,
and 4 through x : : Yr126"
xrlxa andY
(*, - ax")' *(*r- bxs)z:72fi'
Sincc the equation of the infinitely distant line is r, = g, the intersection of
this linc with the circle is given by
fi+*g:g and xt:g'

and this is the equation of the circular points at o. These circular points have
the coordinates (1, i,0) and (1, -J,0) or triples proportional to them'
Likewise tlre equation of the spherical cicle (Kugelkrars) at infinity is
x?+4+x!:g and rn:Q.
If we write the equation of a straight line in the homogeneous form (we
shall use xrg, and z in place of .r1, .r2, and *3)
Ax*Bg*Cz:0
HIGHER PLANE CURVES AND SURFACES 8ss
and now require that the line pass through the points (xu ly zt) and (1, i, 0)
then the resulting nonhomogeneous equation of the line is
x-x6*i(Y-Ci:O
wherein ro : xJzyand,yo : gr/zr. Likewise the equation of the line through
(xtgt zt) and (1, -i,0) is
)t-xo-i(Y-S;:0'
Each of these lines is perpendicular to itself because the slope equals its
negative reciprocal. Sophus Lie called them crazy lines; they are now called
isotropic lines.
Phicker's efforts to treat duality algebraically led him to a beautiful
idea, line coordinates.2* Ifthe equation ofa line in homogeneous coordinates
is
uxttU+wz:0,
and if x, y, and z are fixed quantities, u, a, and w or any three numbers
proportional to them are the coordinates ofa line in the plane. Then just as
an equation;f(* b $s) : 0 represents a collection ofpoints, so./(z, a, w) : g
x2,
represents a collection of lines or a line curve.
With this notion of line coordinates Plircker was able to give an algebraic
formulation and proof of the principle of duality. Given any equation
f(r, s, t) : 0 if we interpret r, s, and , as the homogeneous coordinates
xr, x2, and. x" ofa point then we have the equation ofa point curve, whereas
if we interpret them as u, a, and' zo we have the dual line curve' Any property
proved by algebraic Processes for the point curve will, because the algebra
is the same under either interpretation ofthe variables, give rise to the dual
property of the line curve.
In this second lB30 paper and in Volume 2 ofhis Entwickclungcz Plficker
also pointed out that the very same curve regarded as a collection of poins
be regarded as the collection oflines tangent to the curve because the
".rr.1ro
tangents determine the shape as much as the Points do. The family of tan-
geris is a line curve and has an equation in line coordinates' The degree of
this equation is called the class of the curve, whereas the degree of the
equation in point coordinates is called the order.
5. Higlur Plane Cuntes and Surfaces

The eighteenth-century men had done some work on curves of degree higher
than the second (Chap. 23, sec. 3) but the subject was dormant from 1750
to 1825. Plficker took up third and fourth degree curves and used projective
concepts freely in this work. ,
24. Jour. fnr Mqth',6, 1830, 107-46 : W*s. Abh,' l, 178-219'
8S6 THE REvrvAL oF pRoJEcflvE GEoMETRv
In his Syslan dtr analytischcn Geometrie (I83a) he used a principle, which

though helpful was hardly well grounded, to establish canonical forms of
curves. To show that the general curve oforder (degree) 4, say, could be put
into a particular canonical form he argued that if the number of constants
were the same in the two forms then one could be converted into the other.
Thus he argued that a ternary (three-variable) form of fourth order could
always be put in the form
Cn: pqrs * p{1,,

where y', q, r, and s are linear and Cl is a quadratic form, because both sides
contained 14 constants. In his equations p was real as were the coefficients.
Pl0cker also took up the number of intersection points of curves, a
topic which had also been pursued in the eighteenth century. He used a
scheme for representing the family of all curves which go through the inter-
sections of two ath degree curves C'" and, Ci which had been introduced by
Lamd in a book of 1818, Any curve C,, passing through these intersections
can be expressed as
C":C'" + rCi: g
wherelisaparameter.
Using this scheme Phicker gave a clear explanation of Cramer's
paradox (Chap. 23, sec. 3). A general curve C,, is determined by n(n + 3)12
points bdcause this is the number of essential coefficients in its equation. On
the other hand, since two Co's intersect in z2 points, through the n(n + 3)12
points in which two Co's intersect an infinite number of other Co's pass. The
apparent contradiction was explained by Pliicker.2s Any two ,rth degree
curves do indeed meet in z2 points. However, only (nl2) (n + 3) - I points
are independent. That is, if we take two zth degree curves through the
(nl2) (n + 3) - I points any other nth degree curve through these points
will pass through the remaining (n - l)(n - 2)12 of the z2 points. Thus
when z :4, 13 points are independent. Any two curves through the 13
points determine 16 points but any other curve through the 13 will pass
through the remaining three.
Phicker then took up28 the theory of intersections of an rath degree
curve and an nth degree curve. He regarded the latter as fixed and the curves
intersecting it as variable. Using the abridged notation C" for the expression
for the zth degree curve and similar notation for the others he wrote
C^:Ci"+A^-nCn:0
for thecase where rn > n so that A^-n is a polynomial of degree m - z.
From this equation Plfrcker got the correct method of determining the inter-
25. Annales de Math., 19, 1828, 97-106 = l[iss, Abh,, l, 7U82,
26. Jour. fiir Math., 16, 1837, +7-54.
HIGHER PLANE CURVES AND SURFACES 8sz
sections ofa C, with all curves ofdegree z. Since according to this equation
m - n + I linearly independent curves (the number of coefficients it A^-")
pass through the intersections of Ci, and Cn, Pliicker's conclusion was,
given mn - (n - 1) (n - 2)12 arbitrary Points on Cn; the remaining
(n - l)(n - 2) 12 of the zn intersection points with a C- are determined.
The same result was obtained at about the same time by Jacobi.27
ln his Sgstetn of lB34 and more explicitly it his Theorie der algebraisclun
Curucn (1839) Pliicker gave what are now called the Phicker formulas which
relate the order n and the class,t ofa curve and the simple singularities' Let
d be the number of double points (singular points at which the two tangents
are distinct) and r the number of cusps. To the double points there corre-
spond in the line curve double tangents (a double tangent is actually tangent
at two distinct points) the number of which is, say, t. To the cusps there corre-
spond osculating tangents (tangents which cross the curve at inflection points)
the number of which is, say, zc'. Then Pliicker was able to establish the follow-
ing dual formulas:
k:n(n - l) - 2d-3r n:k(k - l) - 2t-3w
w:3n(n-2) -Gd-Br r:3k(k-2) -Gt -Bw'
The number of any one element includes real and imaginary cases'
In the case when z : 3, d :0, and r : 0, then ro, the number of in-
flection points, is 9. Up to Phicker's time, De Gua and Maclaurin had proved
that a line through two inflection points of the general curve of third order
goes through a third one, and the fact that a general C" had three real in-
flection points had been assumed lrom Clairaut's time on. In his Syskrz of
1834 Phicker proved that a C, has either one or three real inflection points,
and in the latter case they lie on one line' He also arrived at the more
general result which takes complex elements into account. A general Cs has
nine inflection points of which six are imaginary. To derive this result he
used his principle of counting constants to show that
C,:fgh-13,
where rf, g,h, and I are linear forms, and derived ttre result of De Gua and
Maclaurin. He then showed (with incomplete arguments) that the nine
inflection points ofC3 lie three on a line so that there are twelve such lines'
Ludwig Otto Hesse (l8ll-74), who served as a proGssor at several univer-
sities, completed Pliickerts proof2s and showed that the twelve lines can be
grouped into four triangles.
As an additional example of the discovery of general properties of
curves we shall consider the problem ofthe inflection points ofan zth degree
27. Jour.far Math., 15, 1836,285-308 : Werkt,3,329-54.

28. Jou, f'ilr Math.,28, 1844.,97-lO7 : Ges. Abh., 123-35.
BS8 THE REvrvAL oF PRoJEcrrvE GEoMETRY
curve;f(r, y) :0. Pliicker had expressed the usual calculus condition for
an inflection point when y : -f (x), namely, dzyldxz :0, in the form
aPProPriate to f(x,y): 0 and obtained an equation of degree 3n - 4.
Since the original curve and the new curve must have r(3n - 4) inter-
sections, it appeared that the original curve has n(3n - 4) points of in-
flection. Because this number was too large Plircker suggested that the curve
of the equation of degree 3z - 4 has a tangential contact with each of the n
infinite branches of the original curve;f - 0, so that 2z ofthe common points
are not inflection points, and so obtained the correct number, 3n(n - 2)-
Hesse clarified this point2e by using homogeneous coordinates; that is, he
replaced xby x1lxs, andy by x2lxs, and by using Euler's theorem on homo-
geneous functions he showed that Plficker's equation lor the inflection Points
can be written as
l-fr, -fr, -fr"l

H :l-f,, -f,, -f,"1 :0,
l-f", -f", -f,"1
where the subscripts denote partial derivatives. This equation is of degree
3(n - 2) and so meets the curve../(rr, xz, xs) :0 of the zth degree in the
corrcct number of inflection points. The determinant itself is called the
Hessian ofrf,, a notion introduced by Hesse.so
Plicker among others took up the investigation of quartic curves. He
was.the first to discover (Tluoie dzr algcbraisclun Curaen, lB39) that such
curves contain 28 double tangents of which eight at most were real. Jacobi
then provedsr that a curve of zth order has in general n(n - 2) (n2 - 9)12
double tangents.
The work in algebraic geometry also covered figures in space. Though
the representation 9f straight lines in space had already been introduced by
Euler and Cauchy, Pliicker in his Syrlen der Geornetrie des Raumes (System of
Geometry of Space, 1846) introduced a modified representation
x:rz+P, !:sz+o
in which the four parameters t, p, s, and, o fix the line. Now lines can be used
to build up all of space, since, for example, planes are no more than col-
lections of lines, and points are intersections of lines. Phicker then said that
if lines are regarded as the fundamental element of space, space is four-
dimensional because four parameters are needed to cover all of space with
lines. The notion of a four-dimensional space of points he rejected as too
29. Jour. far Math.,4l, 1851,272-8+ : Ges. Abh.,263-78.

3O. Jour. fu Math.,28, 1844, 68-96 =Gu. Abh.,89-122.
31. Jour. far Math., 40, 1850, 237-60= Werke, 3, 51742.
Bsg
metaphysical. That the dimension depends on the space-element is the new

thought.
The study of figures in space included surfaces of the third and fourth
degrees. A ruled surface is generated by a line moving according to some law'
The hyperbolic paraboloid (saddle-surface) and hyperboloid of one sheet
are examples, as is the helicoid. If a surliace of the second degree contains
one line it contains an infinity oflines and it is ruled. (It must then be a cone,
cylinder, the hyperbolic paraboloid, or the hyperboloid of one sheet')
However, this is not true of cubic surfiaces.
As an example of a remarkable property of cubic surfaces there was
Cayley's discovery in 184932 of the existence of exactly 27 lines on every
surface of the third degree. Not all need be real but there are surfaces for
'which they are all real. Clebsch gave an example in l87l.33 These lines have
special properties. For example, each is cut by ten others. Much further work
was devoted to the study of these lines on cubic surfaces.
- Among many discoveries concerning surfaces of fourth order one of
Kummer's results deserves mention. He had 'worked with families of lines
that represent rays of light, and by considering the associated focal surfacessa
he was led to introduce a fourth degree surface (and of class four) with 16
double points and 16 double planes as the focal surface ofa system of rays
of second order. This surface, known as the Kummer surface, embraces as a
special case the Fresnel wave surface, which represents the wave front of
light propagating in anisotropic media.
The work on synthetic and algebraic projective geometry of the first
half of the nineteenth century opened up a brilliant period for geometrical
researches of all kinds. The synthetic geometers dominated the period. They
attacked each new result to discover some general principle, often not
demonstrable geometrically, but from which they nevertheless derived a
spate of consequences tied one to the other and to the general principle'
Fortunately, algebraic methods were also introduced and, as we shall see,
ultimately dominated the field. However, we shall interrupt the history of
projective geometry to consider some revolutionary new creations that
affected all subsequent work in geometry and, in liact, altered radically the
face of mathematics.
Bibliograplry
Berzolari, Luigi: "Allgemeine Theorie der h6heren ebenen algebraischen Kurven,"
Encyk. der Math. Wiss., B. G' Teubner, 1903-15, III C4,313-455'
32. Cambritlge and Dublin Math. Jour.,4, 1849, l18-32 : Mdth. Palqs' l,'*45-56'
33. Math. Ann., 4, l87l , 28+-345.
3+. Morahber. Baliner Akad., 1864, 246-60, 49F99.
86o THE REVIvAL oF PRoJEcTIvE GEoMETRY
Boyer, Carl B.: History of Analglic Geonutry, Scripta Mathematica, 1956, Chaps. 8-
9.
Brill, A., and M. Noether: " Die Entwicklung der Theorie der algebraischen
Functionen in ilterer und neuerer Zeit," Jahres. d.er Deut. Math.'Verein,,3,
1892/3, 109-566, 287-312 in particular.
Cajori, Florian: A History of Mathematits,2nd ed., Macmillan, 1919, pp. 286-302,
309-14.
Coolidge, Julian L.: A Treatisc on the Circle and the Sphere , Oxford University Press,
1916.
A Histoty oJ Geomehiral Methods, Dover (reprint), 1963, Book I, Chap.5 and
Book II, Chap. 2.
A Histary of thc Conb Scctions and Quadric Surfaccs, Dover (reprint), 1968.
" The Rise and Fall of Projective Geometry," American Malhematical
-: Monthly, 41, 1934, 217-28.
Fano, G.: " Gegensatz von synthetischer und analytischer Geometrie in seiner
historischen Entwicklung im XIX. Jahrhundert," Encyk. der Math. Wiss,,
B. G. Teubner 1907-10, III AB4a, 221-88.
Klein, Felix: Elementary Mathzmatics fron an A&tanced Stand|oint, Macmillan, 1939;
Dover (reprint), 1945, Geometry, Part 2.
Kotter, Ernst: " Die Entwickelung der synthetischen Geometrie von Monge bis auf
- Staudt," 1847, Jahrcs. der Deut. Math.-Vercin., Vol. 5, Part II, 1896 (pub.
l90l), l-486.
M6bius, August F.: Der barycentrische Calcul (1827), Georg Olms (reprint), 1968.
Also in Vol. I of Gesammelte Weilez, pp, l-388.
Gesammaltc Wnkc, 4 vols., S. Hirzel, 1885-47; Springer-Verlag (reprint),
1967.
Pliiclrer, Jtriius Gesammelte wisnnschdtliche Abhand.lungen, 2 vols., B. G. Teubner,
l89s-96.
: " Projektive Geometrie," Encyk. der Math. Wiss., B, G. Teubner,
Schoenflies, A.
1907-10, III AB5, 389-480.
Smith, David Eugene: A Source Book in Mathemalics, Dover (reprint), 1959' Vol. 2,
pp. 3l$-23, 33145, 670-76.
Steiner, Jacob: Gcometrical Constructbns Wirh a Ruler (a translation ofhis 1833 book),
Scripta Mathematica, 1950.
Gesanmelte Werla,2 vols., G. Reimer, l88l-82; Chelsea (reprint), 1971.
Zacharias, M, : " Elementargeometrie and elementare nicht-euklidische Geometrie
in synthetischer Behandlung," Encyk. der Math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner,
1907-10, III, AB9, 859-l 172.
36
Non-Euclidean Geometry
. . . because it seems to be true that many things have, as it

were, an epoch in which they are discovered in several places
simultaneously, just as the violets appear on all sides in the
springtime. WOLFGANG BOLYAI
The character of necessity ascribed to the truths of mathe-

matics and even the peculiar certainty attributed to them is
an illusion. JOHN STUART MILL
l. Introduction
Amidst all the complex technical creations of the nineteenth century the
most profound one, non-Euclidean geometry, was technically the simplest'
This ireation gave rise to important new branches of mathematics but its
most significait implication is that it obliged mathematicians to revise
radicalf their understanding of the nature of mathematics and its relrtion
to the physical world. It also gave rise to problems in the foundations of
is still struggling. As we shall
-athe-aiic. with which the twintieth century of a long series of efforts in
see, non-Euclidean geometry was the culmination
the area of Euclidean geometry. The fruition of this work came in the early
nineteenth century during the same decades in which projective geometry
was being revived and extended. flowever, the two domains were
not related
to each other at this time.
2. The Status d Euclidean Geometry about 1800

Though the Greeks had recognized that abstract or mathematical space is
distinit from sensory p".".piiors of space, and Newton emphasized this
point,l all mathemaiiclns until about lB00 were convinced that Euclidean
gao-",.y was the correct idealizatiorl ol the properties of physical space
and
If figr."t in that space. In fact, as we have already noted, there were many
atteirpts to build arithmetic, algebra, and analysis, whose logical foundation
l. Priluipi.a, Book I, Def. 8, Scholium.
86I
86r
was obscure, on Euclidean geometry and thereby guarantee the truth of

these branches too.
Many men actually voiced their absolute trust in the truth of Euclidean
geometry. For example, Isaac Barrow, who built his mathematics including
his calculus on geometry, lists eight reasons for the certainty of geometry:
the clearness of the concepts, the unambiguous definitions, the intuitive
assurance and universal truth of its axioms, the clear possibility and easy
imaginability of its postulates, the small number of its axioms, the clear
conceivability of the mode by which magnitudes are generated, the easy
order of the demonstrations, and the avoidance of things not known.
Barrow did raise the question, How are we sure that the geometric
principles do apply to nature ? His answer was that these are derived from
innate reason, Sensed objects are merely the agents which awaken them.
Moreover the principles of geometry had been confirmed by constant
experience and would continue to be so because the world, designed by God,
is immutable. Geometry is then the perfect and certain science.
It is relevant that the philosophers of the late seventeenth and the
eighteenth century also raised the question of how we can be sure that the
larger body of knowledge that Newtonian science had produced was true.
Almost all, notably Hobbes, Locke, and Leibniz, answered that the mathe-
matical laws, like Euclidean geometry, were inherent in the design of the
universe. Leibniz did leave some room for doubt when he distinguished
between possible and actual worlds. But the only significant exception was
David Hume, who in his Trcatise of Hutnan Nature ( I 739) denied the existence
of laws or necessary sequences of events in the universe. He contended that
these sequences were observed to occur and human beings concluded that
they always will occur in the same fashion. Science is purely empirical. In
particular the laws of Euclidean geometry are not necessary physical truths.
Hume's influence was negated and indeed superseded by Immanuel
Kant's. Kant's answer to the question of how we can be sure that Euclidean
geometry applies to the physical world, which he gave in his Critique of Pure
Reason (1781), is a peculiar one. He maintained that our minds supply
certain modes of organization-he called them intuitions----of space and
time and that experience is absorbed and organized by our minds in accord-
ance with these modes or intuitions. Our minds are so constructed that they
compel us to view the external world in only one way. As a consequence
certain principles about space are prior to experience; these principles and
their logical consequences, which Kant called a priori synthetic truths, are
those of Euclidean geometry. The nature of the external world is known to us
only in the manner in which our minds oblige us to interpret it. On the
grounds just described Kant amrmed, and his contemporaries accepted, that
the physical world must be Euclidean. In any case whether one appealed to
experience, relied upon innate truths, or accepted Kant's view, the common
conclusion was the uniqueness and necessity of Euclidean geometry.
THE RESEARCH ON THE PARALLEL AXIOM B6g
3. The Research on the Parallel Axiom

Though confidence in Euclidean geometry as the correct idealization of
physical space remained unshaken from 300 B.c. to about 1800, one concern
did occupy the mathematicians during almost all of that long period. The
axioms adopted by Euclid were supposed to be self-evident truths about
physical space and about figures in that space. However, the parallel axiom
in the form stated by Euclid (Chap. IV, sec. 3) was believed to be somewhat
too complicated. No one really doubted its truth and yet it lacked the
compelling quality of the other axioms. Apparently even Euclid himself did
not like his own version ofthe parallel axiom because he did not call uPon it
until he had proved all the theorems he could without it.
A related problem which did not bother as many people but which
ultimately came to the fore as equally vital is whether one may assume the
existence of infinite straight lines in physical space. Euclid was careful to
postulate only that one can produce a (finite) straight line as far as necessary
so that even the extended straight line was siill finite. Also the peculiar
wording of Euclid's parallel axiom, that two lines will meet on that side of
the transversal where the sum of the interior angles is less than two right
angles, was a way of avoiding the outright assertion that there are pain of
lines that will never meet no matter how far they are extended. Nevertheless
Euclid did imply the existence of infinite straight Iines for, were they finite,
they could not be extended as far as necessary in any given context and he
proaed the existence of parallel lines.
The history of non-Euclidean geometry begins with the efforts to
eliminate the doubts about Euclid's parallel axiom. From Greek times to
about 1800 two approaches were made. One was to replace the parallel
axiom by a more self-evident statement. The other was to try to deduce it
from the other nine axioms of Euclid; were this possible it would be a theorem
and so be beyond doubt. We qhall not give a fully detailed account of this
work because this history is readily available.2
The first major attempt was made by Ptolemy in his tract on the parallel
postulate. He tried to prove the assertion by deducing it from the other nine
axioms and Euclid's theorems I to 28, which do not depend on the parallel
axiom. But Ptolemy assumed unconsciously that two straight lines do not
enclose a space and that if AB and. CD are parallel (Fig. 36.1) then whatever
holds for the interior angles on one side of .FG must hold on the other.
The fifth-century commentator Proclus was very explicit about his
objection to the parallel axiom. He says, " This [postulate] ought even to
be struck out of the postulates altogether; for it is a theorem involving many
difficulties, which Ptolemy, in a certain book, set himself to solve, and it
requires for the demonstration of it a number of definitions as well as
theorems, and the converse of it is actually proved by Euclid himself as a
2. See, for example, the reference to Bonola in the bibliography at the end ofthc chapter.
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY
Figure 36. I Figure 36.2
theorem." Proclus Points out that while it is necessary to believe that two
lines will tend toward each other on the side of the transversal where the
sum of the interior angles is lgss than two right angles, it is not so clear that
these two lines will actually intersect at a finite point. This conclusion is only
probable. For, he continues, there are certain curves that approach each other
more and more but do not actually meet. Thus, a hyperbola approaches but
does not meet its asymPtote. Hence might not this be true of the two lines in
Euclid's postulate ? He then says that up to a certain sum of the interior
angles on one side of the transversal the two lines might indeed meet; how-
ever, for a value slightly greater but still less than two right angles, the lines
might be asymptotic.
Proclus based his own proof of the parallel postulate on an axiom which
Aristotle used to prove the universe is finite. The axiom says, " Il from one
point two straight lines forming an angle be produced indefinitely' the
successive distances between the said straight lines [perpendiculars from one
onto the other] will ultimately exceed any finite magnitude." Proclus' proof
was essentially correct but he substituted one questionable axiom for another.
Nasir-Eddin (1201-74), the Persian editor of Euclid, likewise gave a
" proof" of Euclid's parallel postulate by assuming that two non-parallel lines
approach each other in one direction and diverge in the other. Specifically,
if AB and CD (Fig. 36.2) are two lines cut by GH, JK, LM, . . ., if these latter
are perpendicular to AB, and if the angles 1,3,5,... are obtuse while
2,+,6,... are acute thenGH > JK > LM '... This fact, Nasir-Eddin says,
is clearly seen.
Wallis did some work on the parallel axiom in 1663 which he published
in 1693.8 First he reproduced Nasir-Eddin's work on the parallel axiom which
he had translated for him by a professor of Arabic at Oxford. Incidentally,
this was how Nasir-Eddin's work on the parallel axiom became known to
Europe. Wallis then criticized Nasir-Eddin's proof and offered his own proof
of Euclid's assertion. His proof rests on the exPlicit assumption that to each
triangle there is a similar one whose sides have any given ratio to the sides
of the original one. Wallis believed that this axiom was more evident than
3. Opera,2, 669-78.
THE RESEARcH ON THE PARALLEL AXIOM 86S
of arbitrarily small subdivision and arbitrarily large extension. In fact, he

said, Euclid's axiom that we can construct a circle with given center and
radius presupposes that there is an arbitrarily large radius at our disposal.
Hence one can just as well assume the analogue for rectilinear figures such
as a triangle.
The simplest of the substitute axioms was suggested by Joseph Fenn in
I 769, namely, that two intersecting lines cannot both be parallel to a third
straight line. This axiom also appears in Proclus' comments on Proposition 3I
of Book I of Euclid's Elements. Fenn's statement is entirely equivalent to the
axiom given in 1795 byJohn Playfair (1748-l8l9): Through a given point
P not on a line l, there is only one line in the plane ofP and / which does not
meet /. This is the axiom used in modern books (which for simplicity usually
say there is " one and only one line . . , ").
Legendre worked on the problem ofthe parallel Postulate over a period
of about twenty years. His results appeared in books and articles including
the many editions of his Eliments dc giomdtrie.4 In one attack on the problem
he proved the parallel postulate on the assumption that there exist similar
triangles of different sizes; actually his proof was analytical but he assumed
that the unit of length does not matter. Then he gave a proof based on the
assumption that given any three noncollinear points there exists a circle
passing through all three. In still another approach he used all but the parallel
postulate and proved that the sum of the angles of a triangle cannot be
greater than two right angles. He then observed that under these same
assumptions the area is proportional to the defect, that is, two right angles
minus the sum of the angles. He therefore tried to construct a triangle twice
the size ofa given triangle so that the defect ofthe larger one would be twice
that of the given one. Proceeding in this way he hoped to get triangles with
larger and larger defects and thus angle sums approaching zero. This result,
he thought, would be absurd and so the sum ofthe angles would have to be
lB0'. This fact in turn would imply the Euclidean pdrallel axiom. But
Legendre found that the construction reduced to proving that through any
given point within a given angle less than 60' one can always draw a straight
line which meets both sides of the angle. This he could not prove without
Euclid's parallel postulate. In each ofth6 twelve editions (l2th ed., l8l3) of
Legendre's version of Euclid's Elements he added appendices which supposedly
gave proofs ofthe parallel postulate but each was deficient because it assumed
something implicitly which could not be assumed or assumed an axiom as
questionable as Euclid's.
In the course of his researches Legendre,s using the Euclidean axioms
except for the parallel axiom, proved the following significant theorems:
If the sum of the angles of one triangle is two right angles, then it is so in
4. lst ed., 1794.
5. Mdm. de l'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 12, 1833, 367410.
866
every triangle. Also if the sum is less than two right angles in one triangle
it is so in every triangle. Then he gives the proofthat if the sum ofthe angles
of any triangle is two right angles, Euclid's parallel postulate holds. This
work on the sum ofthe angles ofa triangle was also fruitless because Legendre
failed to show (without the aid ofthe parallel axiom or an equivalent axiom)
that the sum of the angles ofa triangle cannot be less than two right angles.
The efforts described thus far were mainly attempts to find a more self-
evident substitute axiom for Euclid's parallel axiom and many ofthe proposed
axioms did seem intuitively more self-evident. Consequently their creators
were satisfied that they had accomplished their objective. However, closer
examination showed that these substitute axioms were not really more
satisfactory. Some of them made assertions about what happens indefinitely
Iiar out in space, Thus, to require that there be a circle through any three
points not in a straight line requires larger and larger circles as the three
points approach collinearity. On the other hand the substitute axioms that
did not involve "infinity" directly, for example, the axiom that there exist
two similar but unequal triangles, were seen to be rather complex assump-
tions and by no means preferable to Euclid's own parallel axiom.
The second group of efforts to solve the problem of the parallel axiom
sought to deduce Euclid's assertion from the other nine axioms. The deduc-
tion could be direct or indirect. Ptolemy had attempted a direct proof. The
indirect method assumes some contradictory assertion in place of Euclid's
statemcnt and attempts to deduce a contradiction within this new body of
ensuing theorems. For example, since Euclid's parallel axiom is equivalent
to the axiom that through a point P not on a line / there is one and only one
parallel to /, there are lwo alternatives to this axiom. One is that there are no
parallels to / through P and the other is that there is more than one parallel
to I through P. If by adopting each of these in place of the "one parallel "
axiom one could show that the new set led to a contradiction, then these
alternatives would have to be rejected and the "one parallel " assertion
would be proaed.
The most significant effort of this sort was made by Gerolamo Saccheri
(1667-1733), a Jesuit priest and professor at the University of Pavia. He
studied the work of Nasir-Eddin and Wallis carefully and then adopted his
own approach. Saccheri started with the quadrilateral (Fig. 36.3) ABCD in
which z4 and B are right angles and AC : BD.lt is then easy to prove that
+C : 4D. Now Euclid's parallel axiom is equivalent to the assertion that
angles C and D are right angles. Hence Saccheri considered the two possible
alternatives :
(I the hypothesis of the obtuse angle: {C and jD arc obtuse;

)
(2) the hypothesis of the acute angle: {C and {D are acute.
On the basis of the first hypothesis (and the other nine axioms of Euclid)
FORESHADOWINGS OF NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY
Figure 36.3 ,{ Figure 36.4
Saccheri proved that angles C and D must be right angles. Thus with this
hypothesis he did deduce a contradiction.
Saccheri next considered the second hypothesis and proved many
interesting theorems. He continued until he reached the following theorcm:
Given any point .,4 and a line D (Fig. 36.a), on the hypothesis of the acute
angle there exist in the pencil (family) of lines through I two lines I and
4 which divide the pencil into two Parts. The first of these consists of the
lines which intersect D, and the second consists of those lines (lying in angle
cr) which have a common perpendicular with 6 somewhere along D. The
lines p and 4 themsclves are asymptotic to 6. From this result and a lengthy
subsequent argument Saccheri deduced that, and D would have a com,mon
perpendicular at their common point, which is at infinity. Even though he
had not obtained any contradiction, Saccheri found this conclusion and
others so repugnant that he decided the hypothesis ofthe acute angle must be
false.
There remained only the hypothesis that angles Cand D of Figure 36.3
are right angles. Saccheri had previously proved that when C and D arc
right angles, the sum of the angles of any triangle equals l80o and that'this
fact implies Euclid's parallel postulate. He therefore felt justified in con-
cluding that Euclid was upheld and so published his Eucli.dts ab Onni Nmo
Vintlicatus (Euclid Vindicated from All Faults, 1733). Howevet, since
Saccheri did not obtain a contradiction on the basis of the acutc angle
hypothesis the problem of the parallel axiom was still open.
The efforts to find an acceptable substitute for the Euclidean axiom on
parallels or to prove that the Euclidean assertion must be a theorem were so
numerous and so futile that in 1759 d'Alembert called the problem of the
parallel axiom "the scandal of the elements of geometry'"
4. Foreshadowings of Non-Euclidean Geometry

In his dissertation of 1763 Georg S. Klngel (1739-1812), professor of mathe-
matics at the University of Helmstiidt, who knew SaCcheri's book, made the
remarkable observatioa that the certainty with which men accepted the truth
of the Euclidean parallel axiom was based on experience. This observation
868 NoN-EUcL$EAN cEoMETRy
introduced for the first time the thought that experience rather than
self-evidence substantiated the axioms. Kltigel expressed doubt that the
Euclidean assertion could be proved. He realized that Saccheri had'not
arrived at a contradiction but merely at results that seemed at variance with
experience.
Klngel's paper suggested work on the parallel axiom to Lambert. In his
book, Tlvoie der Parallellinien written in 1766 and published in I 786,6
Lambert, somewhat like Saccheri, considered a quadrilateral with three
.
right angles and considered the possibilities of the fourth angle being right,
obtuse, and acute. Lambert did discard the obtuse angle hypothesis because
it Ied to a contradiction. However, unlike Saccheri, Lambert did not conclude
that he had obtained a contradiction from the acute angle hypothesis.
The consequences Lambert deduced from both the obtuse and acute
angle hypothesis, respectively, even though the former did lead to a contra-
diction, are noteworthy. His most remarkable result is that under either
hypothesis the area of a polygon of n sides is proportional to the difference
between the sum of the angles and,2n - 4 right angles. (Saccheri had this
result for a triangle.) He also noted that the obtuse angle hypothesis gave
rise to theorems just like those which hold for figures on the surface of a
sphere. And he conjectured that the theorems that followed from the acute
angle hypothesis would apply to figures on a sphere of imaginary radius.
This led him to write a paperT on the trigonometric functions of imaginary
angles, that is, dl, where I is a real angle and i : \/=, which in effect
introduced the hyperbolic functions (Chap. 19, sec. 2). We shall see a little
more clearly later just what Lambert's observations mean.
Lambert's views on geometry were quite advanced. He realized that
any body ofhypotheses which did not lead to contradictions offered a possible
geometry. Such a geometry would be a valid logical structure even though it
might have little to do with real 6gures. The latter might be suggestive of a
particular geometry but do not control the variety of logically developable
geometries. Lambert did not reach the more radical conclusion that was
introduced somewhat later by Gauss.
Still another forward step was made by Ferdinand Karl Schweikart
(1780-1859), a professor ofjurisprudence, who devoted spare time to mathe-
matics. He worked on non-Euclidean geometry during the period in which
Gauss devoted some thought to the subject but Schweikart arrived at his
conclusions independently. He was, however, influenced by Saccheri's and
Lambert's work. In a memorandum ol lBl6 which he sent to Gauss in lBlB
for approval, Schweikart actually distinguished two geometries. There is the
geometry of Euclid and a geometry based on the assumption that the sum
of the angles of a triangle is not two right angles. This latter geometry he
6. Magazin.ftu reine und angewandte Mathematik, 1786, 137-64, 325-58.
7 . H*t. de I'Acad. de Berlin, 24, 1768, 327
-54, pub. 1770 : O?era Mathematica, 2, 245-69.
THE cREATToN oF NoN-EUcLTDEAN GEoMETRY 86g
called astral geometry, because it might hold in the space of the stars, and its
theorems were those which Saccheri and Lambert had established on the
basis of the acute angle hypothesis.
Franz Adolf Taurinus (1794-lS7 4), a nephew of Schweikart, took up
his uncle's suggestion to study astral geometry. Though he established in his
Geometriae Prima Elemmta ( 1826) some new results, notably some analytic
geometry, he concluded that only Euclid's geometry could be true of
physical space but that the astral geometry was hgically consistetut. Taurinus
also showed that the formulas which would hold on a sphere of imaginary
radius are precisely those that hold in his astral geometry.
The work of Lambert, Schweikart, and Taurinus constitutes advances
that warrant recapitulation. All three and other men such as Kliigel and
Abraham G. Kiistner (1719-1800), a professor at Gitttingen' were convinced
that Euclid's parallel axiom could not be proven, that is, it is independent of
Euclid's other axioms. Further, Lambert, Schweikart, and Taurinus were
convinced that it is possible to adopt an alternative axiom contradicting
Euclid's and build a logically consistent geometry. Lambert made no
assertions about the applicability ofsuch a geometry; Taurinus thought it is
not applicable to physical space; but Schweikart believed it might aPPly to
the region of the stars. These three men also noted that the geometry on a
real sphere has the properties of the geometry based on the obtuse angle
hypothesis (if one leaves aside the contradiction which results from the latter)
and the geometry on a sphere of imaginary radius has the properties of the
geometry based on the acute angle hypothesis. Thus all three recognized the
existence of a non-Euclidean geometry but they missed one fundamental
point, namely, that Euclidean geometry is not the only geometry that
describes the properties of physical sPace to within the accuracy for which
experience can vouch.
5. The Creation of Non-Euclidean GeometrY

No major branch of mathematics or even a major specific result is the work
of one man. At best, some decisive step or proof may be credited to an
individual. This cumulative development of mathematics applies especially
to non-Euclidean geometry. If one means by the creation of non-Euclidean
geometry the recognition that there can be geometries alternative to Euclid's
then Kliigel and Lambert deserve the credit. If non-Euclidean geometry
means the technical development of the consequences of a system of axioms
containing an alternative to Euclid's parallel axiom then most credit must be
accorded to Saccheri and even he benefited by the work of many men who
tried to find a more acceptable substitute axiom for Euclid's. However, the
most significant fact about non-Euclidean geometry is that it can be used to
describe the properties of physical sPace as accurately as Euclidean geometry
87o NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY
does. The latter is not the necessary geometry of physical (pace; its physical
trutfi cannot be guaranteed on any a priori grounds. This realization, which
did not call for any technical mathematical development because this had
already been done, was first achieved by Gauss.
Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) was the son of a mason in the German
city of Brunswick and seemed destined for manual work. But the director of
the school at which he rcceived his elementary education was struck.by
Gauss's intelligence and called him to the attention of Duke KarI Wilhelm.
The Duke sent Gauss to a higher school and then in I 795 to the University
of G6ttingen. Gauss now began to work hard on his ideas. At eighteen he
invented the method of least squ,rres and at nineteen he showed that the
l7-sidcd regular polygon is constructible. These successes convinced him that
he should turn from philology to mathematics. In l79B he transferred to the
University of Helmstiidt and there he was noticed by Johann Friedrich
Pfaff who became his teacher and friend. After finishing his doctor's degree
Gauss returned to Brunswick where he wrote some of his most famous papers.
This wort earned for him in 1807 the appointment as professor of astronomy
and director of the observatory at Gtittingen. Except for one visit to Berlin
to attcnd a scientific meeting he remained at G<ittingen for the rest of his life.
He did not like to teach and said so. However, he did enjoy social life, was
married twice, and raised a liamily.
Gauss's fust major work was his doctoral thesis in which he proved the
fundamental theorem of algebra. In l80l he published the classic Dis-
Arithmeticac. His mathematical work in differential geometry, the
" Disq u:sitiones Generales circa Superficies Curvas" (General Investigations
of Curved Surfaces, lB27), which, incidentally, was the outcome of his
interest in surveying, geodesy, and map-making, is a mathematical landmark
(Chap. 37, sec. 2). He made many other contributions to algebra, complex
functions, and potential theory. In unpublished papers he recorded his
innovative work in two major fields: the elliptic functions and non-Euclidean
g€ometry.
His interests in physics were equally broad and he devoted most of his
energy to them. When Giuseppe Piazzi (1746-1826) discovered the planet
Ccres in l80l Gauss undertook to determine its path. This was the beginning
of his work in astronomy, the activity that absorbed him most and to which
he devoted about twenty years. One ofhis great publications in this area is his
Tluoia Motus Corporam Coelcstiun (Theory of Motion of the Heavenly Bodies,
lB09). Gauss also earned great distinction in his physical research on
theoretical and experimental magnetism. Maxwell says in his Electricitg and
Magnetism that Gauss's studies of magnetism reconstructed the whole science,
the instruments used, the methods of observation, and the calculation of
results. Gauss's papers on terrestrial magnetism are models of physical
research and supplied the best method of measuring the earth's magnetic
THE cREATToN oF NoN-EUcLTDEAN GEoMETRY 87t
field. His work on astronomy and magnetism opened up a new and brilliant
period of alliance between mathematics and physics.
Though Gauss and Wilhelm Weber (1804-91) did not invent the idea
of telegraphy, in 1833 they improved on earlier techniques with a practical
device which made a needle rotate right and left depending upon the direction
of current sent over a wire. Gauss also worked in optics, which had been
neglected since Euler's days, and his investigations of 1838-41 gave a totally
new basis for the handling of optical problems.
The universality of Gauss's activities is all the more remarkable because
his contemporaries had begun to confine themselves to specialized investiga-
tions. Despite the fact that he is acknowledged to be the greatest mathe-
matician at least since Newton, Gauss was not so much an innovator as a
transitional figure from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century. Although
he achieved some new views which did engage other mathematicians he was
oriented more to the past than to the future. Felix Klein describes Gauss's
position in these words : We could have a tableau of the development of
mathematics if we would imagine a chain of high mountains representing
the men of the eighteenth century terminated by an imposing summit-
Gauss-then a large and rich region filled with new elements of life. Gauss's
contemporaries aPPreciated his genius and by the time of his death in 1855
he was widely venerated and called the " prince of mathematicians."
Gauss published relatively little of his work because he polished what-
ever he did partly to achieve elegance and partly to achieve for his demon-
strations the maximum of conciseness without sacrificing rigor, at least the
rigor of his time. In the case of non-Euclidean geometry he published no
definitive work. He said in a letter to Bessel ofJanuary 27,1829, that he
probably would never publish his findings in this subject because he feared
ridicule, or, as he put it, he feared the clamor of the Boeotians, a figurative
reference to a dull-witted Greek tribe. Gauss may have been overly cautious,
but one must remember that though some mathematicians had been
gradually reaching ihe climax of the work in non-Euclidean geometry the
intellectual world at large was still dominated by Kant's teachings. What we
do know about Gauss's work in non-Euclidean geometry is gleaned from his
letters to friends, two short reviews in the Gdttingische Gchhrte Anzeigan of l816
and lB22 and some notes of t83l found among his papers after his death'8
Gauss was fully aware of the vain efforts to establish Euclid's Parallel
postulate because this was common knowledge in Gtittingen and the whole
history of these efforts was thoroughly familiar to Gauss's teacher Kistner'
Gauss told his friend Schumacher that as far back as 1792 (Gauss was then
fifteen) he had already grasped the idea that there could be a logical geometry
in which Euclid's parallel postulate did not hold. By 1794 Gauss had found
8. Werke,I, 157-268, contains all of the above and the l€tter discussed bclow'
8zz
that in his concept ofnon-Euclidean geometry the area ofa quadrangle must
be proportional to the difference between 360' and the sum of the angles.
However, at this later date and even up to I 799 Gauss was still trying to
deduce Euclid's parallel postulate from other more plausible assumptions and
he still believed Euclidean geometry to be the geometry of physical space
even though he could conceive of other logical non-Euclidean geometries.
However, on December 17, 1799, Gauss wrote to his friend the Hungarian
mathematician Wolfgang Farkas Bolyai ( I 775-1 856),
As for me I have already made some progress in my work. However, the
path I have chosen does not lead at all to the goal which we seek [deduction
of the parallel axiom], and which you assure me you have reached. It
seems rather to compel me to doubt the truth of geometry itself. It is true
that I have come upon much which by most people would be held to
constitute a proofl but in my eyes it proves as good as nothing. For
example, if we could show that a rectilinear triangle whose area would be
greater than any given area is possible, then I would be ready to prove
the whole of [Euclidean] geometry absolutely rigorously.
Most people would certainly let this stand as an axioml but I, no!
It would, indeed, be possible that the area might always remain below a
certain limit, however far apart the three angular points of the triangle
were taken.
This passage shows that by 1799 Gauss was rather convinced that the parallel
axiom cannot be deduced from the remaining Euclidean axioms and began
to take more seriously the development of a new and possibly applicable
geometry.
From about l8l3 on Gauss developed his new geometry which he first
called anti-Euclidean geometry, then astral geometry, and finally non-
Euclidean geometry. He became convinced that it was Iogically consistent
and rather sure that it might be applicable. In reviews of lBl6 and lB22 and
in his letter to Bessel of lB29 Gauss reaffirmed that the parallel postulate
could not be proved on the basis of the other axioms in Euclid. His letter to
Olbers written in 1817e is a landmark. In it Gauss says, "I am becoming
more and more convinced that the [physical] necessity of our [Euclidean]
geometry cannot be proved, at least not by human reason nor for human
reason. Perhaps in another life we will be able to obtain insight into the
nature of space, which is now unattainable. Until then we must place
geometry not in the same class with arithmetic, rvhich is purely a priori,
but with mechanics."
To test the applicability of Euclidean geometry and his non-Euclidean
geometry Gauss actually measured the sum of the angles of the triangle
formed by three mountain peaks, Brocken, Hohehagen, and Inselsberg. The
9. Werke, 8, 177.
THE CREATION OF NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY 879
sidesof this triangle were 69, 85, and 197 km. He found ro that the sum
exceeded lB0" by 14185. The experiment proved nothing because the
experimental error was much larger than the excess and so the correct sum
could have been l80o or even less. As Gauss realized, the triangle was a
small one and since in the non-Euclidean geometry the defect is proportional
to the area only a large triangle could possibly reveal any significant departure
from an angle sum of 180'.
We shall not discuss the specific non-Euclidean theorems that are due
to Gauss. He did not write up a full deductive presentation and the theorems
he did prove are much like those we shall encounter in the work of
Lobatchevsky and Bolyai. These two men are generally credited with the
creation of non-Euclidean geometry. Just what is to their credit will be
discussed later but they did publish organized presentations of a non-
Euclidean geometry on a deductive synthetic basis with the full understanding
that this new geometry was logically as legitimate as Euclid's.
Nikolai Ivanovich Lobatchevsky (l 793-1856), a Russian, studied at the
University of Kazan and from lB27 to 1846 was professor and rector at that
university. He presented his views on the loundations of geometry in a paper
before the department of mathematics and physics of the University in 1826.
However, the paper was never printed and was lost. He gave his approach
to non-Euclidean geometry in a series of papers, the first two of which were
published in Kazan journals and the third in the Journal fiir Matlumatik.rt
The first was entitled " On the Foundations of Geometry" and appeared in
1829-30. The second, entitled " New Foundations of Geometry with a
Complete Theory ol Parallels " (1835-37), is a better presentation of
Lobatchevsky's ideas. He called his new geometry imaginary geometry for
reasons which are perhaps already apparent and will be clearer later. In
lB40 he published a book in German, Geometrische Untersuchungen zur Tluoric
12). In
der Parallelliniea (Geometrical Researches on the Theory of Parallels
this book he laments the slight interest shown in his writings. Though he
became blind he dictated a completely new exposition of his geometry and
published it in 1855 under the title PangiomCtrie.
John (J6nos) Bolyai ( I 802-60), son of Wolfgang Bolyai, was a Hungarian
army officer. On non-Euclidean geometry, which he called absolute geom-
etry, he wrote a twenty-six-page paPer "The Science of Absolute Spac6."ra
This was published as an appendix to his father's book Tentamen Juacntubm
Studiosam in Elementa Mathepos (Essay on the Elements of Mathematics for
10. We*q 4, 258.

ll. Jour. fiir. Math., 17 , lB37 , 295-320.
12. The English translation appears in Bonola. See the bibliography at the end of this
chapter.
13. The English translation appears in Bonola. See the bibliography at the end of this
chapter.
87+
Studious Youths). Though the two-volume book appeared in 1832-33 and

therdore after a publication by Lobatchevsky, Bolyai seems to have worked
out his ideas on no'n-Euclidean geometry by 1825 and was convinced by that
time that the new geometry was not sellcontradictory. In a letter to his
father dated November 23, 1823,John wrote, "I have made such wonderful
discoveries that I am myself lost in astonishment." Bolyai's work was so
much like Lobatchevsky's that when Bolyai first saw the latter's work in 1835
he thought it was copied from his own lB32-33 publication. On the other
hand, Gauss read John Bolyai's article in 1832 and wrote to Wolfgang 1a
that he was unable to praise it for to do so would be to praise his own work.
6. Tlu Techni.cal Content of Non-Euclidea.n Geornetry

Gauss, Lobatchevsky, and Bolyai had realized that the Euclidean parallel
axiom could not be proved on the basis of the other nine axioms and that
some such additional axiom was needed to found Euclidean geometry. Since
the parallel axiom was an independent fact it was then at least logically
possible to adopt a contradictory statement and develop the consequences
of the new set of axioms.
To study the technical content of what these men created, it is just as
well to ta&.e Lobatchevsky's work because all three did about the same thing.
Lobatchevsky gave, as we know, several versions which differ only in details.
We shall use his lB35-37 paper as the basis for the account here.
Since, as in Euclid's Elcments, many theorems can be proved which do
not depend at all upon the parallel axiom, such theorems are valid in the
new geometry. Lobatchevsky divotes the first six chapters ofhis paper to the
proof of these basic theorems. He assumes at the outset that space is infinite,
and he is then able to prove that two straight lines cannot intersect in more
than one point and that two perpendiculars to the same line cannot intersect.
In his seventh chapter Lobatchevsky boldly rejects the Euclidean
paralel axiom and makes the following assumption: Given a line lB and a
point C (Fig. 36.5) then all lines through C fall into two classes with respect
to lB, namely, the class of lines which rneet AB and the class of lines which
do not. To the latter belong two lines y' and g which form the boundary
between the two classes. These two boundary lines are called parallel lines.
More precisely, if C is a point at a perpendicular distance a from the line
AB, then there exists an anglers z(a) such that all lines through C which
make with the perpendicular CD an angle less than r(a) will intersect z4B;
all other lines through C do not intersect 18.18 The two lines which make the
14. Wcrkc, 8, 220-21 .
15. The symbol a(a) is standard and so ig used here. Actually thc z in z(a) has nothing to
do with thc number rr.
16. The idea that a specific angle can be associated with a length is due to Lambert.
TECHNICAL CONTENT OF NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY 87s
Figure 36.5
angle z(a) with lB are the parallels and z(a) is called the angle ofparallelism.
Lines through C other than the parallels and which do not meet AB ate
called non-intersecting lines, though in Euclid's sense they are parallel to
AB and. so in this sense Lobatchevsky's geometry contains an infinite number
of parallels through C.
If zr(a) : ztl2 then the Euclidean axiom results. If not, then it follows
that r(a) increases and approaches rf2 as c decreases to zero' and zr(c)
decreases and approaches zero as a becomes infinite. The sum of the angles
of a triangle is always less than z, decreases as the area of the triangle
increases, and approaches zr as the area approaches zero. If two triangles arc
similar then they are congruent.
Now Lobatchevsky turns to the trigonometric part of his gcometry.
The first step is the determination of r(a). The result, if a complete central
angle is 2t, isLT
(r)
from which it follows that zr(0) : nl2 and r'( +o) = 0. The relation (l) is
significant in that with each length * it associates a deinite angle z(*).
When .r : I, tan ln(l)l2J: a-l so that z(l) : 4O'24'. Thus the unit of
Iength is that length whose angle of parallelism is 40"24' . This unit of length
does not have direct physical significance. It can be physically one inch or
one mile. One would choose the physical interPretation which would make
the geometry physically applicable.ls
Then Lobatchevsky deduces formulas connecting sides and angles of
the plane triangles of his geometry. In a paper of lB34 he had defined cos x
17. This is a special formulation. In his 18'10 work Lobatchevsky gives what amounB to
the form usually given in modern t€xts and which Gauss also has, namcly,
(.) tanlfl) = c-'r*

where ,t is a constant, called the space constant' For thmretical PurPos€s the value of t
is immaterial. Bolyai also gives the form (c).
18. In the case of the relation tan [t(x) l2l = the choice of thc value for x which
'-''k,
should corrcspond to, say, 40"24' would determine ,t.
876 NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY
Figure 36.6
and sin x for real x as the real and imaginary parts of ar". Lobatchevsky's
point was to give a purely analytical foundation for trigonometry and so
make it independent of Euclidean geometry. The main trigonometric
formulas of his geometry are (Fig. 36.6)
cot t(a) : cot zr(c) sin l4

sinl: cosBsinzr(D)
sin zr(c) : sin z(a) sin zr(6)'
These formulas hold in ordinary spherical trigonometry provided that the

sides have imaginary lengths. That is, if one replaces a, b, and r in the usual
formulas of spherical trigonom etry by ia, ib, and ic one obtains Lobatchevsky's
formulas. Since the trigonometric functions of imaginary angles are replace-
able by hyperbolic functions one might expect to see these latter functions in
Lobatchevsky's formulas. They can be introduced by using the relation
tan @(x) 12) : e-xtk. Thus the first of the formulas above can be converted
into
sinhf : sinhf sinl.
Also whereas in the usual spherical geometry the area of a triangle with
angles l, B, and C is 12 (A + B + C - zr), in the non-Euclidean geometry
it is r2[zr - (A + B + C)] which amounts to replacing r by ir in the usual

formula.
By working with an infinitesimal triangle Lobatchevsky derived in his
first paper (1829-30) the formula
o,:l@\m, \
for the element of arc on a curve g -- f (x) at the point (.t, y). Then the entire
circumference of a circle of radius r can be calculated' It is
C:n(e'-e-').
The expression for the area of a circle proves to be
A: n(erl2 - e- tl2)2
CLAIMS OF LOBATCHEVSKY AIYD BOLYAI TO PRIORITY 8ll
fss
Figure 36.7
He also gives theorems on the area ofplane and curved regions and volumes
o(solids.
The formulas of Euclidean geometry result from the non-Euclidean
formulas when the magnitudes are small. Thus if we use the fact that
e,:t*r*fi*...
and neglect for small r all but the first two terms then, for example,
C : t(e, -'-,) - fll + r - (1 - r)) : 2nr.
In the first paper (1829-30) Lobatchevsky also considered the applica-
bility of his geometry to physical space. The essence of his argument rests on
the parallax of stars. Suppose E, and. E, (fig. 36.7) are the positions of the
earth six months apart and S is a star. The parallaxp of S is the difference in
the directions of ErS and ErS measured, say, from the perpendicular E1S'.
If Er.R is the Euclidean parallel to .E S, then since E,.SE2 is an isosceles
triangle, n 12 - j.SEfi2 is half of the change in direction of the star, that is,
pl2. This angle is l'.24 for the star Sirius (Lobatchevsky's value). As long as
such an angle is not zero, the line from .8, to the star cannot be the parallel
to LS because the line cuts 7S. If, however, there were a lower bound to the
various parallaxes of all the stars then any line from E1 making a smaller
angle with Er,S' than this lower bound could be taken to be a parallel to 7S
through E, and this geometry would be equally useful so far as stellar
measurements are concerned. But then Lobatchevsky showed that the unit
of length in his geometry would have to be, physically, more than a half a
million times the radius of the earth's path. In other words, Lobatchevsky's
geometry could be applicable only in an enormously large triangle.
7. The Claims d Lobatcheosky and Bolyai to Prioity

The creation of non-Euclidean geometry is often used as an example ofhow
an idea occurs independently to diflerent people at about the same time.
Sometimes this is regarded as pure coincidence and sometimes as evidence
of the spirit of the time working its influence in widely separated quarters.
The creation of non-Euclidean geometry by Gauss, Lobatchevsky, and
Bolyai is not an example of a simultaneous creation nor is the great credit
8ZB NoN-EUoLTDEAN GBoMETRY
given to Lobatchevsky and Bolyai justified. It is true, as already noted, that

ih"y *o" the first to publish an avowed non-Euclidean geometry and in this
act showed more courage than Gauss did. However, the creation of non-
Euclidean geometry is hardly their contribution. We have already pointed
out that even Gauss was preceded by Lambert, that Schweikart and Taurinus
were independent creators, and that Lambert and Taurinus published their
work. Moreover the realization that the new geometry may be applicable to
physical space is due to Gauss'
Both Lobatchevsky and Bolyai owe much to Gauss. Lobatchevsky's
teacher in Kazan was Johann Martin Bartels (1769-1836)' a good friend of
Gauss. In liact they sPent the years lB05 to 1807 together in Brunswick'
Subsequently Gauss and Bartels kept in communication with each other. It
is extremely unlikely that Bartels did not Pass on to Lobatchevsky, who
remained at Kazan as a colleague, Gauss's Progress in non-Euclidean
geometry. In particular Bartels must have known Gauss's doubts as to the
truth of Euclidean geometry.
As for John Bolyai, his father Wolfgang was also a close friend of Gauss
and a fellow student in Giittingen from 1796 to 1798. Wolfgang and Gauss
not only continued to communicate with each other but discussed the
specific subject of the parallel axiom, as one ofthe quotations above indicates.
Wolfgang continued to work hard on the problem of the parallel axiom and
sent a purported proof to Gauss in 1804. Gauss showed him that the proofwas
fallacious. By lBlT Gauss was certain not only that the axiom could not be
proved but that a logically consistent and physically applicable non-
bucfidean geometry could be constructed' Beyond his communication of
1799 to this effect, Gauss transmitted his later thoughts freely to Wolfgang.
Wolfgang continued to work on the problem until he published his Tentamen
of 1832-33. Since he recommended to his son that he take up the problem of
the parallel axiom he almost certainly retailed what he knew'
There are contrary views. The mathematician Friedrich Engel (1861-
l94l) believed that though Lobatchevsky's teacher Bartels was Gauss's
friend, Lobatchevsky could hardly have learned more through this con-
nection than that Gauss doubted the physical correctness of the parallel
axiom. But this fact in itself was crucial. However, Engel doubted that
Lobatchevsky learned even this much from Gauss, for Lobatchevsky had
tried from 1816 on to Prove the Euclidean parallel axiom; then recognizing
the hopelessness of such efforts finally in 1826 created the new geometry'
John Bolyai also tried to Prove the Euclidean parallel axiom until about
1820 and then turned to the construction of a new geometry. But these
continuing eflorts to prove the parallel axiom do not imply ignorance of
Gauss's thoughts.re Since no one, not even Gauss, had shown that Euclid's
19. However, sec Georgc Bruce Halsted, Amcr. Malh. Monrhly,6, 1899, 166-72; and 7,
t900,247-52.
rMpLrcATroNs oF NoN-EUcLTDEAN cEoMETRy B7g
parallel axiom could not be deduced from the other nine axioms both
Lobatchevsky and Bolyai may have decided to try their hand at the problem.
Having failed, they could appreciate all the more readily the wisdom of
Gauss's views on the subject.
As for the technical content contributed by Lobatchevsky and John
Bolyai, though they may have created this independently oftheir predecessors
and of each other, Saccheri's and Lambert's work, to say nothing of
Schweikart's and Taurinus's, was widely known in Gottingen and was
certainly known to Barqels and Wolfgang Bolyai. And when Lobatchevsky
refers in his lB35-37 paper to the futility of the efforts over two thousand
years to settle the question of the parallel axiom, by inference he admits to
the knowledge of the earlier work.
8. The Implications of Non-Euclidean Geometry

We have already stated that the creation of non-Euclidean geometry was
the most consequential and revolutionary step in mathematics since Greek
times. We shall not treat all the implications of the subject at this time.
Instead we shall follow the historical course of events. The impact of the
creation and the full realization of its significance were delayed because
Gauss did not publish his work on this subject and Lobatchevsky's and
Bolyai's work was ignored for about thirty years. Though these men were
aware of the importance of their work, the mathematicians generally
exhibited their usual reluctance to entertain radical ideas. Also, the key
subject in the geometry of the 1830s and l840s was projective geometry
and for this reason too the work on non-Euclidean geometry did not attract
the English, French, and German mathematicians. When Gauss's notes and
correspondence on non-Euclidean geometry were published after his death
in 1855 attention was drawn to the subject. His name gave weight to the
ideas and soon thereafter Lobatchevsky's and Bolyai's work was noted by
Richard Baltzer (lBl&-87) in a book of l866-67. Subsequent developments
finally brought mathematicians to the realization of the full import of
non-Euclidean geometry.
Gauss did see the most revolutionary implication. The first step in the
creation of non-Euclidean geometry was the realization that the parallel
axiom could not be proved on the basis of the other nine axioms. It was an
independent assertion and so it was possible to adopt a contradictory axiom
and develop an entirely new geometry. This Gauss and others did. But
Gauss, having realized that Euclidean geometry is not necessarily the
geometry of physical space, that is, is not necessarily true, put geometry in
the same class with mechanics, and asserted that the quality of truth must
be restricted to arithmetic (and its development in analysis). This confidence
in arithmetic is in itself curious. Arithmetic at this time had no logical
8Bo NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY
foundation at all. The assurance that arithmetic, algebra, and analysis

offered truths about the physical world stemmed entirely from reliance upon
experience.
The history of non-Euclidean geometry reveals in a striking manner
how much mathematicians are influenced not by the reasoning they perform
but by the spirit of the times. Saccheri had rejected the strange theorems ol
non-Euclidean geometry and concluded that Euclid was vindicated' But one
hundred years later Gauss, Lobatchevsky, and Bolyai confidently accepted
the new geometry. They believed that their new geometry was logically
consistent and hence that this geometry was as valid as Euclid's' But they
had no proof of this consistency. Though they proved many theorems and
obtained no evident contradictions, the possibility remained open that a
contradiction might still be derived. Were this to happen, then the assumP-
tion of their parallel axiom would be invalid and, as Saccheri had believed,
Euclid's parallel axiom would be a consequence of his other axioms.
Actually Bolyai and Lobatchevsky considered this question ofconsistency
and were partly convinced of it because their trigonometry was the same as
for a sphere ofimaginary radius and the sphere is part ofEuclidean geometry.
But Bolyai was not satisfied with this evidence because trigonometry in itself
is not a complete mathematical system. Thus despite the absence of any
proof of consistency, or of the applicability of the new geometry, which
might at least have served as a convincing argument' Gauss, Bolyai, and
Lobatchevsky accepted what their predecessors had regarded as absurd.
This acceptance was an act of faith. The question of the consistency of non-
Euclidean geometry remained open for another forty years.
One more point about the creation of non-Euclidean geometry warrants
attention and emphasis. There is a common belief that Gauss, Bolyai, and
Lobatchevsky went off into a corner, played with changing the axioms of
Euclidean geometry just to satisfy their intellectual curiosity and so greated
the new geometry. And since this creation has proved to be enor]mously
important for science-a form of non-Euclidean geometry which we have
yet to examine has been used in the theory of relativity-many mathe-
maticians have contended that pure intellectual curiosity is sufficient justifica-
tion for the exploration of any mathematical idea and that the values lor
science will almost surely ensue as purportedly happened in the case of
non-Euclidean geometry. But the history of non-Euclidean geometry does
not support this thesis. We have seen rthat non-Euclidean geometry came
about after centuries of work on the paiallel axiom. The concern about this
axiom stemmed from the fact that it should be, as an axiom, a self-evident
truth. Since the axioms of geometry are our basic facts about physical space
and vast branches of mathematics and of physical science use the properties
of Euclidean geometry the mathematicians wished to be sure that they were
relying upon truths. In other words, the problem of the parallel axiom was
88I
not only a genuine physical problem but as fundamental a physical problem

as there can be.
Bibliogra!lry
Bonola, Roberto: Non-Eutlidean Geometry, Dover (reprint), 1955.
Dunnington, G. W.: Carl Friedrich Gauss, Stechert-Hafner, 1960.
Engel, F., and P. Staeckel: Die Theoriz der Parallellinien wn Euklid bis auf Gauss,
2 vols., B. G. Teubner, 1895. )
I|rkunden zur Geschichtc fur nichteuklidisclun Geometric, B. G. Teubner,
1899-1913, 2 vols. The 6rst volume contains the translation from Russian
into German of Lobatchevsky's 1829-30 and 1835-37 papers. The second
is on the work of the two Bolyais.
Enriques, F. : " Prinzipien der Geometrie," Encyk. dzr Math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner,
1907-10, III ABr, l-129.
Gauss, Carl F.: Werlu, B. G. Teubner, 1900 and 1903, Vol. 8, 157-268; Vol. 9,
297458.
Heath, Thomas L.: Euclid's Elements, Dover (reprint), 1956, Vol. I' pp.202-20.
Kagan, V. : Lobatchzuskg and. his Contri.buti.on to Scitrce, Foreign Language Pub. House,
Moscow, 1957.
Lambert, J. H.: Opera Mathemalica,..2 vols., Orell Fussli, l9'1G-'18.
Pasch, Moritz, and Max Dehn: Vi\sungcn i)ber neture Geomttric, 2nd ed., Julius
Springer, 1926, pp. 185-238.
Saccheri, Gerolamo: Ettclides ab Omni Nacoo Vindicatus, English trans. by G. B,
Halsted in Amer. Math. Monthly, Vots. l-5, 189'S-98; also Opcn Court Pub. Co.,
1920, and Chelsea (reprint), 1970.
Schmidt, Franz, and Paul Staeckel: Brizfucchsel zwischen Carl Fricdli.h Gauss uzd
Wolfgang Bolyai.B. G. Teubner, 1899; Georg Olms (reprint)' 1970.
Smith, David E.: A Source Book in Mathematirs, Dover (reprint), 1959, Vol.2,
pp.35l-88.
Sommerville, D. M. Y. : The Elenunts of Non-Euclidean Gcomctry, Dover (reprint),
1958.
Staeckel, P. :
" Gauss als Geometer," Naehrichtcn Kdnig. Gcs, dcr Wiss. zu Gdtt.,
1917, Beiheft, pp.25-142. Also in Gauss: Wcrke , X2.
von Walterhausen, W. Sartorius: Carl Fricdrich Galss, S. Hirzel, 1856; Springer-
Verlag (reprint), 1965.
Zact,arias, M. : " Elementargeometrie und elementare nicht-euLlidische Geometrie
in synthetischer Behandlung," Encyk. dcr Math. Wiss.' B. G. Teubner,
l9l,s-31, III AB9, 859-1172.
37
The Differential Geometry of
Gauss and Riemann
Thou, nature, art my goddess; to thy laws my services are

bound.,.. CARL I.. GAUSS
l. Introduction
We shall now pick up the threads of the development of differential geometry,
particularly the theory of surfaces as founded by Euler and extended by
Monge. The no<t great steP in this subject was made by Gauss.
Gauss had devoted an immense amount of work to geodesy and map-
making starting in 1816. His participation in actual physical surveys, on
which he published many PaPers, stimulated his interest in differential
geomctry and led to his definitive 1827 paper " Disquisitiones Generales
circa Superficies Curvas " (General (Investigations of Curved Surfaces) '1
However, bcyond contributing this dbfinitive treatment of the differential
geometry of surfaces lying in three-dimensional space Gauss advanced the
totally new concept that a surface is a space in itself. It was this concept
that Riemann generalized, thereby opening up new vistas in non-Euclidean
geometry.
2. Gauss's Difuential Geometry

Euler had already introduced the idea (Chap. 23, sec' 7) that the coordinates
(x,g, z) of any point on a surface can be represented in terms of two param-
eters z and u; that is, the equations ofa surface are given by
(l) x: x(u,a), g : Y(u\a), z: z(u,a).
Gauss's point of departure was to use this parametric representation for the
systematic study of surfaces. From these parametric equations we have
(2) dt:.atlu a a'da, dg: bdu * b'ila, dz:cduic'da
l. Comm. Soc, Go,t.,6, f 828, 99-l'16 : Wcrla,4,217-58.
BBe
OAUSS,S DIFFERENTIAL OEOMETRY 88s
wherein d : xt!, o,' : *u, and so forth. For convenience Gauss introduces
the determinants
'l|, a :l' '1,

:lb c'l c :1"
bt
A
lb' lc a'l l"' ul
and the quantity
6:1/lt-za-P-a@
which he supposes is not identically 0.
The fundamental quantity on any surface is the element of arc length
which in (x,y, z) coordinates is
(3) ds2 : dx2 + dg' + dzz.
Gauss now uses the equations (2) to write (3) as
(4) ds2 : E(u, a) du2 + 2F(u, r) du do * G(u, o) dal,
where
E:a2+b2*c2, F:aa'+bb'+cc', G:a'2 +b'' +c'2.
The angle between two curves on a surface is another fundamental
quantity. A curve on the surface is determined by a relation between z and
a, for then x, g, and. z become functions of one parameter, u or u, and the
equations (l) become the parametric representation of a curve. One says in
the language ofdifferentials that at a point (u, u) a curve or the direction ofa
curve emanating from the point is given by the ratio du:da. If then we have
two curves or two directions emanating from (2, u), one given by tlu:fu anl.d
the other by du'tda', and if 0 is the angle between these directions, Gauss
shows that
(5) cos d : E dudu' * du da' * du' da) * G tla do'

+ 2l'du dt + E du'z * 2F du' da' *
Gauss undertakes next to study the curvature ofa surface. His definition
of curvature is a generalization to surfaces of the indicatrix used for space
curves by Euler and used for surfaces by Olinde Rodrigues.2 At each point
(x, y, z) ot a surllace there is a normal with a direction attached. Gauss
considers a unit sphere and chooses a radius having the direction of the
directed normal on the surface. The choice of radius determines a point
(X, Y, Z) on the sphere. If we next consider on the surface any small region
surrounding (x,g, z) then there is a corresponding region on the sPhere
surrounding (X, Y, Z). The curvature of the surface at (x,y' z) is defined as
the limit ofthe ratio ofthe area ofthe region on the sPhere to the area of the
corresponding region on the surface as the two areas shrink to their respective
2. Corrcsp. sur l'Ecole Poly.,3, lal4-16' 162-82.
88+ THE DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY OF GAUSS AND RIEMANN
points. Gauss evaluates this ratio by noting first that the tangent plane at
(X, Y, Z) on the sphere is parallel to the one at (x,y, z) on the surface. Hence
the ratio of the two areas is the ratio of their projections on the respective
tangent planes. To find this latter ratio Gauss performs an amazing number
of differentiations and obtains a result which is still basic, namely, that the
(total) curvature r( of the surface is
K
LN_M2
(6) "- -- EG-F2
wherein
lx"" lut
"',:ri." lxuu !u,
:l*, lu ",1,
zuul zuul
i;"
:l
u
l-, !t, ",1 ': h ',i ',".1
Then Gauss shows that his i( is the product of the two principal curvatures
at (x,g, z), which had been introduced by Euler. The notion of mean
curvature, the average of the two principal curvatures, was introduced by
Sophie Germain in 1831.3
Now Gauss makes an extremely imPortant observation. When the
surface is given by the parametric equations (l), the properties of the
surface seem to depend on the functions rc, !, z. By fixing u, say u : 3, and
letting u vary, one obtains a curve on the surface. For the various possible
fixed values of z one obtains a family of curves' Likewise by fixing u one
obtains a family of curves. These two families are the parametric curves on
the surf;ace so that each point is given by a pair of numbers (e,d), say'
where z : c and a : d are the parametric curves which pass through the
point. These coordinates do not necessarily denote distances any more than
latitude and longitude do. Let us think ofa surface on which the parametric
curves have been determined in some way. Then, Gauss affirms, the geo-
metrical properties of the surface are determined solely by the E, F, and G
in the expression (4) for /s2. These functions of z and tt ate all that matter'
It is certainly the case, as is evident from (4) and (5), that distances and
angles on the surface are determined by the E, F, and G. But Gauss's funda-
mental expression lor curvature, (6) above, depends upon the additional
quantities L, M, and N. Gauss now Proves that
(B) . : h{*,lrLr# - h'*l * l,lhq,, - lr# - h'*l)

wherein 11 : 'y' pj-85
- pz and is equal to Gauss's A defined above. Equation
(B), called the Gauss characteristic equation, shows that the curvature K
and, in particular in view of (6), the quantity LN - M2 depend only upon
3. Jour. fiir Math.,7,l83l, l-29.
GAUss's DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY BBS
E, F, and G. Since E, F, and G are functions only of the parametric

coordinates on the surface, the curvature too is a function only of the pa-
rameters and does not depend at all on whether or how the surface lies in
three-space.
Gauss had made the observation that the properties ofa surface depend
only on E, F, and G, However, many properties other than curvature involve
the quantities L, M, and N and not in the combin ation LN - M2 which
appears in equation (6). The analytical substantiation of Gauss's point was
made by Gaspare Mainardi (1800-79),4 and independently by Delfino
Codazzi (1824-75),5 both of whom gave two additional relations in the
form of differential equations which together with Gauss's characteristic
equation, r( having the value in (6), determine L, M, and .tr[ in terms of
E, F, and G.
Then Ossian Bonnet (1819-92) proved in 18678 the theorem that when
six functions satisfy the Gauss characteristic equation and the two Mainardi-
Codazzi equations, they determine a surface uniquely excePt as to position
and orientation in space. Specifically, if E, F, and G and L, M, ar.d N are
given as functions of u and a which satisfy the Gauss characteristic equation
and the Mainardi-Codazzi equations if EG - F2 + 0, then there exists
^nd
g, and z as functions of z and u which
a surface given by three functions x,
has the first fundamental form
E duz + 2F du dtt + G da2,
alad L, M, and .tr[ are related to E, F, ar:d G through (7). This surfirce is
uniquely determined except for position in space. (For real surfaces with real
coordinates (u, a) we must have EG - F2 > 0, E > 0, and G > 0). Bonnet's
theorem is the analogue of the corresponding theorem on curves (Chap. 23'
sec. 6).
The fact that the properties ofa surface depend only on the E, F, and G
has many implications some of which were drawn by Gauss in his 1827
paper. For example, if a surface is bent without stretching or contracting'
the coordinate lines z : const. and , : const. will remain the same and so
ds will remain the same. Hence all properties of the surface, the curvature in
particular, will remain the same. Moreover, if two surfaces can be put into
one-to-one correspondence with each other, that is, if z' : $(u,a)' tt' :
,lt(u, u), where u' and a' are the coordinates of points on the second surliace'
and if the element of distance at corresponding points is the same on the
two surflaces, that is, if
E duz + 2F du da * G dtt2 : E' du'2 * 2F' du' du' + G' dv'z
4. Giomale dell' Istituto l-ombardo,9, 1856, 385-98.

5. Annali di Mat., (3),2, 1868-69, l0l-19.
6. Jour. de l'Ecole Poly,,25, 1867, 3l-151.
886 THE DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY OF GAUSS AND RIEMANN
wherein E,F,and G are functions ofz and oandE',F',G'are functions of

u' and a' , then the two surfaces, which are said to be isometric, must have the
sarne geometry. In particular, as Gauss pointed out, they must have the
same total curvature at corresPonding points. This result Gauss called a
" theorema egregium," a most excellent theorem.
As a corollary, it follows that to move a patt of a surface over to another
part (which means Preserving distance) a necessary condition is that the
surface have constant curvature. Thus, a part of a sphere can be moved
without distortion to another but this cannot be done on an ellipsoid.
(Howwer, bending can take place in fitting a surface or part of a surface
onto another under an isometric mapping.) Though the curvatures at corre-
sponding points are equal, if two surfaces do not have constant curyature
they need not necessarily be isometrically related' In lB39? Ferdinand
Minding (1806-85) proved that if two surflaces do have constant and equal
curvature then one can be mapped isometrically onto the other'
Another topic of great importance that Gauss took up in his lB27 paper
is that offinding geodesics on surfaces. (The term geodesic was introduced in
1850 by Liouville and was taken from geodesy.) This problem calls for the
calculus of variations which Gauss uses. He approaches this subject by
working with the .r, y, z rePresentation and Proves a theorem stated by
John Bernoulli that the principal normal of a geodesic curve is normal to the
surface. (Thus the principal normal at a point of a latitude circle on a
sphere lies in the plane ofthe circle and is not normal to the sphere whereas
the principal normal at a point on a longitude circle is normal to the sphere')
Any relation between u and t determines a curve on the surface and the
relation which gives a geodesic is determined by a differential equation. This
equation, which Gauss merely says is a second order equation in z and z but
does not give explicitly, can be written in many forms. One is
dza
(e)
E:
I
"\7")
&t\3
+ (2n - re)' + (t'2p.)!,- t,
where z, fit F> vt l, and I are functions of E, F, and G,

One must be careful about assuming the existence of a unique geodesic
between two points on a surface. Two nearby points on a sphere have a
unique geodesic joining them, but two diametrically opposite points are
joined by an infinity of geodesics. Similarly, two Points on the same generator
of a circular cylinder are connected by a geodesic along the generator but
also by an infinite number of geodesic helices. If there is but one geodesic
arc between two points in a region, that arc gives the shortest path between
them in that region. The problem of actually determining the geodesics on
particular surfaces was taken up by many men.
7. Jour. f'b Math., 19, 1839, 370-87.

GAUSS'S DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY BB7
Figure 37.1
Gauss proved a famous theorem on curvature for a

In the lB27 article
triangle formed by geodesics (Fig. 37.1). Let l( be the variable curvature of
a surface. lJ^X ae is then the integral of this curvature over the area A.
Gauss's thioiem applied to the triangle states that
ll
JJt
xae:cr* ..z+do-ni
that is, the integral of the curvature over a geodesic triangle is equal to the
excess of the sum of the angles over l80o or, where the angle sum is less
than z, to the defect from I80". This theorem, Gauss says, ought to be
counted as a most elegant theorem. The result generalizes the theorem of
Lambert (Chap. 36, sec. 4), which states that the area ofa spherical triangle
equals the product of its spherical excess and the square of the radius, for
in a spherical triangle 1( is constant and equals l/R2.
One more important piece of work in Gauss's differential geometry
must be noted. Lagrange (Chap. 23, sec. B) had treated the conformal
mapping of a surface of revolution into the plane' In 1822 Gauss won a
prize offered by the Danish Royal Society of Sciences for a paper on the
problem of finding the analytic condition for transforming any surface
conformally onto any other surface.s His condition, which holds in the
neighborhood of corresponding points on the two surfaces, amounts to the
fact that a function P + iQ, which we shall not specify further, of the pa-
rameters T and u by means of which one surface is represented is a
functionrf of iD * iq which is the corresponding function of the parameters I
and z by which the other surface is represented and P - iQ isf'(p - ;q)'
where.rf is;f or obtained from;f by replacing i by - 2. The functionlf depends
on the correspondence between the two surfaces, the correspondence being
specified by T : T(t, u) and' U(1, z). Gauss did not answer the question of
whether and in what way a finite portion of the surface can be mapped
conformally onto the other surface' This problem was taken up by Riemann
in his work on complex functions (Chap. 27, sec. I0).
Gauss's work in differential geometry is a landmark in itself' But its
implications were far deeper than he himself appreciated. Until this work,
'lilerke,4, 189-216.
8.
B8B THE DIFEERENTIAL CEOMETRY OF GAUSS AND RIEMANN
surfaces had been studied as figures in three-dimensional Euclidean space.

But Gauss showed that the geometry of a surface could be studied by
concentrating on the surface itself. Ifone introduces the z and u coordinates
which come from the parametric representation
x : x(u,a), s : s(u, t), z : z(u, 0)
ofthe surface in three-dimensional space and uses the E, fl and G determined

thereby then one obtains the Euclidean properties of that surface. However,
given these u and, t coordinates on the surface and the expression for ds2 in
terms of d F, and G as functions of u and r', all the properties of the surface
follow from this expression. This suggests two vital thoughts. The first is that
the surface can be considered as a space in itselfbecause all its properties are
determined by the ds2. One can forget about the fact that the surface lies in a
three-dimensional space. What kind of geometry does the surface possess if
it is regarded as a space in itself? Ifone takes the "straight lines" on that
surface to be the geodesics, then the geometry is non-Euclidean.
Thus if the surflace of the sphere is studied as a space in itself, it has its
own geometry and even if the familiar latitude and longitude are used as the
coordinates of points, the geometry of that surface is not Euclidean because
the " straight lines " or geodesics are arcs ofthe great circles on the surface.
However, the geometry of the spherical surface is Euclidean if it is regarded
as a surliace in three-dimensional space. The shortest distance between two
points on the surface is then the line segment of three-dimensional Euclidean
geometry (though it does not lie on the surface). What Gauss's work implied
is that there are non-Euclidean geometries at least on surfaces regarded as
spaces in themselves. Whether Gauss saw this non-Euclidean interpretation
of his geometry of surfaces is not clear.
One can go further. One might think that the proper E, F, and G for a
surface is determined by the parametric equations (l). But one could start
with the surface, introduce the two f,amilies of parametric curves and then
pick functions E, F, and G of u and, almost arbitrarily. Then the surface
has a geometry determined by these E, F, and G. This geometry is intrinsic
to the surface and has no connection with the surrounding space. Conse-
quently the same surface can have dffirnt geometries depending on the
choice of the functions E, F, ar,'d G.
The implications are deeper. If one can pick different sets of .8, d and G
and thereby determine diflerent geometries on the same surface, why can't
one pick diflerent distance functions in our ordinary three-dimensional
space ? The common distance function in rectangular coordinates is, of
cor-Lse, ds2 : dxz + dyz + dzz and this is obligatory if one starts with
Euclidean geometry because it is just the analytic statement of the Pythag-
orean theorem. However, given the same rectangular Cartesian coordinates
for the points of space, one might pick a different expression for ds2 and
RTEMANN'S AppRoAcH To cEoMETRy BBg
obtain a quite different geometry for that space, a non-Euclidean geometry.

This extension to any space of the ideas Gauss first obtained by studying
surfaces was taken up and developed by Riemann.
3. Riemann's Approach to Geometry

The doubts about what we may believe about the geometry ofphysical space,
raised by the work of Gauss, Lobatchevsky, and Bolyai, stimulated one of t\:
major creations of the nineteenth century, Riemannian geometry. The
creator was Georg Bernhard Riemann, the deepest philosopher of geometry.
Though the details of Lobatchevsky's and Bolyai's work were unknown to
Riemann, they were known to Gauss, and Riemann certainly knew Gauss's
doubts as to the truth and necessary applicability of Euclidean geometry.
Thus in the field of geometry Riemann followed Gauss whereas in function
theory he lollowed Cauchy and Abel. His investigation of geometry was
influenced also by the teachings ofthe psychologist Johann Friedrich Herbart
(1776-1841).
Gauss assigned to Riemann the subject of the foundations of geometry
as the one on which he should deliver his qualifying lecture, the Habilita'
tionsaortrag, for the title of Prioatdozent. The lecture was delivered in 1854 to
the faculty at Gdttingen with Gauss Present, and was published in I 868
under the title "Uber die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde
liegen" (On the Hypotheses Which Lie at the Foundation of Geometry).e
In a paper on the conduction of heat, which Riemann wrote in 186l
to compete for a prize offered by the Paris Academy of Sciences and which
is often referred to as his Pariserarbeit, Riemann found the need to consider
further his ideas on geometry and here he gave some technical elaborations
of his lB54 paper. This 186l paper, which did not win the prize, was pub-
lished posthumously in 1876 in his Collected Works.to In the second edition of
the Werke Heinrich Weber in a note explains Riemann's highly compressed
material.
The geometry of space offered by Riemann was not just an extension of
Gauss's differential geometry. It reconsidered the whole approach to the
study of space. Riemann took uP the question ofjust what we may be certain
of about physical space. What conditions or facts are presuPPosed in the
very experience of space before we determine by experience the particular
axioms that hold in physical space ? One of Riemann's objectives was to
show that Euclid's particular axioms were empirical rather than, as had been
believed, self-evident truths. He adopted the analytical approach because in
9. Abh. dcr :
Ges. der l4/iss. zu Giitt., 13, 1868, l-20 Wcrke, 2nd ed., 272-87. An English
translation can be found in W. K. Clifford's Collected Mathematical Paprs. Also in Noturc,
8, 1873, l,$-36, and in D. E. Smith, A Source Book in Mothunatics, 4ll-25.
10. Werke,2nd ed., 1892, 391-404'
89o THE DIFTERENTIAL GEOMETRY OF GAUSS AND RIEMANN
geometrical proofs we may be misled by our perceptions to assume f;acts not

explicitly recognized. Thus Riemann's idea was that by relying upon analysis
we might start with what is surely a priori about space and deduce the
necessary consequences. Any other ProPerties of space would then be known
to be empirical. Gauss had concerned himself with this very same problem
but of this investigation only the essay on curved surfaces was published.
Ribmann's search for what is a priori led him to study the local behavior of
space or, in other words, the differential geometric approach as opposed to
the consideration of space as a whole as one finds it in Euclid or in the non-
Euclidean geometry of Gauss, Bolyai, and Lobatchevsky. Before examining
the details we should be forewarned that Riemann's ideas as expressed in the
lecture and in the manuscript of lB54 are vague. One reason is that Riemann
adapted it to his audience, the entire faculty at Giittingen. Part ofthe vague-
ness stems from the philosophical considerations with which Riemann began
his paper.
Guided to a Iarge extent by Gauss's intrinsic geometry of surfaces in
Euclidean space, Riemann developed an intrirsic geometry for any space.
He preferred to treat z-dimensional geometry even though the three-
dimensional case was clearly the imPortant one and he speaks of n-dimen-
sional space as a manifold. A point in a manifold of z dimensions is represented
by assigning special values to z variable parameters, rb xz,, ..,.rn, and the
aggr€gate of all such possible points constitutes the z-dimensional manifold
itsc[ just as the aggregate of the points on a surface constitutes the surface
itself. The z variable parameters are called coordinates of the manifold.
When the *,'s vary continuously, the points range over the manifold.
Because Riemann believed that we know space only locally he started
by defining the distance between two generic points whose corresponding
coordinates differ only by infinitesimal amounts. He assumes that the square
of tJris distance is
(10) dsz :
))sud*,a*,,
wherein the 91, are functions of the coordinates x1, !t2, . , .,ltn, Et! : gn, a\d
the right side of (10) is always positive for all possible values of the /r1. This
expression for dsz is a generalization of the Euclidean distance formula
tk2 : dx? + dxA +...+ dxf;.
He mentions the possibility of assuming for ds the fourth root of a homo-

geneous function of the fourth degree in the differentials dx1,dx2,...,d*n
but did not pursue this possibility. By allowing the g17 to be functions of the
coordinates Riemann provided for the possibility that the nature ofthe space
may vary from point to point.
RTEMANN'S APPRoAcH To GEoMETRY 89I
Though Riemann in his paper of 1854 did not set forth explicitly the
following definitions he undoubtedly had them in mind because they parallel
what Gauss did for surfaces. A curve on a Riemannian manifold is given by
the set of z functions
(lt) \ : x(t), tz : xz?),. .', x,r : xn(t).
Then the length ofa curve between I: a and I : p is defined by
( l2) t:lB . : I:Hdt: I' s,,fifia,-

The shortest curve between two given points, tr : cr and I : p, the geodesic,
is then determinable by the method of the calculus of variations. In the
notation o[ that subject it is the curve for which t It" at : 0. One must then
determine the particular functions of the form ( I I ) which furnish this
shortest path between the two points. In terms of the paramet€r arc length s,
the equations of the geodesics prove to be
# .>*\*ft : o, i,A,p: t,2,"',n'

^'Y
This is a system ofn second order ordinary differential equations.ll
The angle 0 between two curves meeting at a point (xr, x2' . . . , xn),
one curve determined by the directions dxrlds, i : 1,2,. . ., z, and the other
by dxilds', i : 1,2,. . ., z, where the primes indicate values belonging to the
second direction, is defined by the formula
( l3) cos d: 2 .,*#

=r
tJ,
By following the procedures which Gauss used fior surliaces, a metrical

z-dimensional geometry can be developed with the above definitions as a
basis. All the metrical properties are determined by the coefficients g,1 in
the expression for d"r2.
The second major concept in Riemann's 1854 paper is the notion of
curvature of a manifold. Through it Riemann sought to characterize
Euclidean space and more generally spaces on which figures may be moved
about without change in shape or magnitude. Riemann's notion of curvature
for any n-dimensional manifold is a generalization of Gauss's notion of total
curvature for surfaces. Like Gauss's notion, the curvature of the manifold is
defined in terms of quantities determinable on the manifold itself and there
ll. For the meaning of the brace symbol see (19) bclow. Riemann did not give these
equations explicitly.
B9Z THE DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY OF GAUSS AND RIEMANN
is no need to think of the manifold as lying in some higher-dimensional

manifold.
Given a point P in the n-dimensional manifold, Riemann considers a
two-dimensional manifold at the point and in the z-dimensional manifold.
Such a two-dimensional manifold is formed by a singly infinite set ol
geodesics through the point and tangent to a plane section of the manifold
through the point P. Now a geodesic can be described by the point P and a
direction at that point. Let dx'r, d*L, . . . , dxnbe the direction of one geodesic
and dxi, d*2, . . . , dxi be the direction of another. Then the ith direction of
any one of the singly infinite set of geodesics at P is given by
dx,: 7' dxi + A'dxi

(subject to the condition l'2 * A'2 + 2['A'cos d : I which arises lrom the
condition ) gt(dalds) (dx,lds) : l). This set of geodesics forms a two-
dimensional manifold which has a Gaussian curvature. Because there is an
infinity of such two-dimensional manifolds through P we obtain an infinite
number of curvatures at that Point in the z-dimensional manifold. But from
n(n - l)12 of these measures ol curvature, the rest can be deduced. An
explicit expression for the measure of curvature can now be derived. This
was done by Riemann in his 186l paper and will be given below. For a
manifold which is a surface , Riemann's curvature is exactly Gauss's total
curvature. Strictly speaking, Riemann's curvature, like Gauss's, is a property
of the metric imposed on the manifold rather than of the manifold itself.
After Riemann had completed his general investigation olz-dimensional
geometry and showed how curvature is introduced, he considered more
restricted manifolds on which finite spatial forms must be capable of move-
ment without change of size or shape and must be capable of rotation in any
direction. This led him to spaces of constant curvature.
When all the measures of curvature at a point are the same and equal to
all the measures at any other point, we get what Riemann calls a manilold of
constant curvature. On such a maniflold it is possible to treat congruent
figures. In the lB54 paper Riemann gave the following results but no details:
If c be the measure of curvature the formula for the infinitesimal element of
distance on a manifold of constant cuwature becomes (in a suitable coordinate
system)
2 d,?
(14) *"
).2
--(l
l=l
+(al+))x!)2
-
Riemann thought that the curvature o must be positive or zero, so that when
a > 0 we get a spherical space and when a : 0 we get a Euclidean space
and conversely. He also believed that if a space is infinitely extended the
RTEMANN's AppRoActr ro cEoMETRY BgS
curvaturs mtrt be zqo. He did, however, suggest that there might be a real
surflace of constant negative curvature'12
To elaborate on Riemann, for cr : a2 > 0 and' n : 3 we get a three-
dimensional spherical geometry though we cannot visualize it. The space is
finite in extent but boundless' All geodesics in it are of constant length,
namely, 2rla, and return upon themselves. The volume of the space is
2n2la3, For a2 > 0 and n:2 we get the space of the ordinary spherical
surface. The geodesics are ofcourse the great circles and are finite. Moreover,
any two intersect in two points. Actually it is not clear whether Riemann
regarded the geodesics of a surface of constant positive curvature as cutting
in one or two points. He probably intended the latter. Felix Klein pointed
out later (see the next chapter) that there were two distinct geometries
involved.
Riemann also points out a distinction, of which more was made later,
between boundlessness [as is the case for the surface ofa sphere] and infinite-
ness of space. Unboundedness, he says, has a greater empirical credibility
than any other empirically derived fact such as infinite extent.
Toward the end of his paper Riemann notes that since physical space is
a special kind of manifold the geometry of that sPace cannot be derived only
from general notions about manifolds. The properties that distinguish
physical space from other triPly extended manifolds are to be obtained only
from experience. He adds, "It remains to resolve the question of knowing in
what measure and up to what point these hypotheses about manifolds are
confirmed by experience." In particular the axioms of Euclidean geometry
may be only approximately true of physical space. Like Lobatchevsky,
Riemann believed that astronomy will decide which geometry fits space'
He ends his paper with the prophetic remark: " Either therefore the reality
which underlies space must form a discrete manifold or we must seek the
ground of its metric relations outside it, in the binding forces which act on
it. . . . This leads us into the domain of another science, that of physics, into
which the object ofour work does not allow us to go today."
This point was developed by William Kingdon Clifford'ra
I hold in fact: (l) That small portions ofspace are ofa nature analogous
to little hills on a surface which is on the average flat' (2) That this
property of being curved or distorted is continually passed on from one
portion of space to another after the manner of a wave' (3) That this
variation of the curvature of space is really what haPpens in that
phenomenon which we call the motion of matter whether ponderable or
ethereal. (4) That in this physical world nothing else takes place but this
variation, subject, possibly, to the law of continuity'
12. Such surfaces were already known to Ferdinand Minding (Jour' ftr Math', 19' 1839,
370-87, pp.378-80 in particular), including the very one later callcd thc pscudosphere
(see Chap. 38, sec. 2). See also Gauss, We*e,8,265.
13. Proc. Camb. Phit. Soc., 2, 1870, 157-58 : Math. Pa?ers,2V22'
894 THE DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY OF GAUSS AND RIEMANN
The ordinary laws of Euclidean geometry are not valid for a space whose
curvature changes not only from place to place but because of the motion of
matter, from time to time. He added that a more exact investigation of
physical laws would not be able to ignore these " hills " in space. Thus
Riemann and Clifford, unlike most other geometers, felt the need to associate
matter rvith space in order to determine what is true of physical space. This
line of thought leads, of course, to the theory of relativity.
ln lis Pariserurbail ( I 86l ) Riemann returned to the question of when a
given Riemannian space whose metric is
(15) &' : S s,, dx, dx,

l.! =l
might be a space ofconstant curvature or even a Euclidean space. However,
he formulated the more general question of when a metric such as (15) can
be transformed by the equations
(16) 4 : xr(|v!2,.. .,!n), i:1,2,...,n
into a given metric
(17) ds'e : S h,,du,du,

t,t =L
with the understanding ofcourse that dr would equal /s' so that the geometries
ofthe two spaces would be the same except for the choice ofcoordinates. The
transformation (16) is not always possible because, as Riemann points out,
there are n(n + l)12 independent functions in (15), whereas the trans-
formation introduces only z functions which might be used to convert the
9,, into the il,r.
To treat the general question Riemann introduced special quantities
p,rs which we shall replace by the more familiar Christoffel symbols with the
understanding that
!u* : l'!l'
The Christoffel symbols, denoted in various ways, are
: t,P,
(lB) rar,r: tifl
^r:i(w.* -*)
(ls) rla : {if} : t"p, :)s'^lf)
^}
where g'^ is the cofactor divided by g ofg,1 in the determinant of g. Riemann
also introduced what is now known as the Riemann four index symbol
(20) (pi,jk): Rx,.tx:+P

o*t" oxt * i-
-u\y'' )s''(f^*,,r,r,r - fri,or,t.r).
RTEMANN'S AppRoAcH To cEoMETRy 89s
Then Riemann shows that a necessary condition that dsz be transformable

to ds'2 is
(21) (o6, Fy)' :,2.,?k, ih)

?y.#?"#,
where the left-hand symbol refers to quantities formed for the /s' metric and
(2 I ) holds for all values of a, p, y, 6, each of which ranges from I to z.
And now Riemann turns to the specific question ol when a given dsz
can be transformed to one with constant coefficients. He first derives an
explicit exr*ession for the curvature of a manifold' The general definition
already giv ,n in the lB54 paper makes use ofthe geodesic lines issuing from
a point O < f the space. Let d and E determine two vectors or directions of
g"ode.ic. emanating from O. (Each direction is specified by the components
of the tangent to the geodesic.) Then consider the pencil of geodesic vectors
emanating from O and given by xd + lE where r and tr are parameters.
If one thinks of d and 8 as operating on the x, : ;[(l) which describe any one
curve, then there is a meaning for the second differential (r/ + )D)s :
r2d2 + 2rcA dE + 1262. Riemann then forms
(22) o : sD
) s,r d*, tu, - z aaf su dxt dxt + dd)su dx, dxt.
Here one understands that the d and 6 oPerate formally on the expressions
following them (and / and E commute) so that
(23) as)su dx1dx,: a[) tas,) dx,dx1* )su((sd*) dx, + dx,6dx,)]

and 69,, : ), (OgulAil Ex,. If one calculates O one finds that all terms
involving third differentials of a function vanish' Only terms involving 64,
dx1, 62xr, 6dxr, and d2xl remain. By calculating these terms and by using the
notation
?n" : d4 6x* - dx* 6xt

Riemann obtains
(24) tof : > (ik,rs)P,*P,,.

l,h.t.8
Now let
4A, : > g, dx, dx,.) g, 6x, 6x, - (Z o, d*, 5*)'.

Then the curvature 1( of a Riemannian manifold is
(25) (: -[E^,
8g6 THE DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY OF GAUSS AND RIEMANN
The overall conclusion is that the necessary and sufficient condition that a
given ds2 can be brought to the form (for n : 3)
(26) ds'z : 4 dx! + c, dx! + cs dx!,
where the c1's are constants, is that all the symbols ("F, y6) be zero. In case
the e,'s are all positive the d,r'can be reduced to dg! + dyl + dg!, that is, the
space is Euclidean. As we can see from the value of [O], when 1( is zero, the
space is essentially Euclidean.
It is worth noting that Riemann's curvature for an z-dimensional
manifiold reduces to Gauss's total curvature ofa surface. In fact when
ds2 : gr dx? + 2kz dx, dxs * 92 dxZ,
of the 16 symbols ("F, yA), 12 are zero and for the remaining four we have
(12, 12) : -(12,21) : -(21,12) : (21,21). Then Riemann's r( reduces
to
k _ (t2, 12) .
c
By using (20) this expression can be shown to be equal to Gauss's expression
for the total curvature of a surface.
4. The Successors of Riemann

When Riemann's essay of 1854 was published in 1868, two years after his
death, it created intense interest, and many mathematicians hastened to fill
in the ideas he sketched and to extend them. The immediate successors of
Riemann were Beltrami, Christoffel, and Lipschitz.
Eugenio Beltrami (1835-1900), professor of mathematics at Bologna and
other Italian universities, who knew Riemann's 1854 paper but apparently
did not know his 186l paper, took up the matter of proving that the general
expression for ds2 reduces to the form (14) given by Riemann for a space of
constant curvature.l4 Beyond this result and proving a few other assertions
by Riemann, Beltrami took up the subject of differential invariants, which we
shall consider in the next section.
Elwin Bruno Christoffel ( 1829-1900), who was a professor of mathe-
matics at Zurich and later at Strasbourg, advanced the ideas in both of
Riemann's papers. In two key papers ls Christoffel's major concern was to
reconsider and amplify the theme already treated somewhat sketchily by
Riemann in his 1861 paper, namely, when one form
F: > g,,dxidx1
1,,
14. Annali di Mat., (2),2, 1868-69, 232-55 : Opere Mat., l, 406-29.

15. Jour, far Math.,70, 1869,46-70 and241-45: Ges. Math. Abh., l,352 tr, 378 tr
THE SUCCESSORS OF RIEMANN Bg7
can be transformed into another
F' :>eit dY,dsi'

i,t
Christoffel sought necessary and sumcient conditions. It was in this papcr,
incidentally, that he introduced the Christoffel symbols-
Ldt us consider first the two-dimensional case where
F: adx2 *2bdxdg + cdgz
and
F' : AdX2 +28dXdY +CdY2
and suppose that x and g may be expressed as functions of Xand Iso that F
becomes F' under the transformation. Of course dx : QIIAX) dX +
@xll\ dY. Now when x, y, dx, and dg are replaced in F by their values in X
and I and when one equates coemcients in this new form of Fwith those of
F' one obtains
,G+)' + 2h Y*gax * 'W)' :A

.Y*?r* oe*H. ?r#) * '9*?r: u
"(?r)' + 'zb(##\ *'W\' :'

These are three differential equations for * and y as functions of X and Y'
Il they can be solved then we know how to transfiorm from F to F'' However,
there are only two functions involved. There must then be some relations
between a, b, and a on the one hand and A, B, and C on the other' By
differentiating the three equations above and further algebraic stePs the
relation proves to be K : K' .
For the n-variable case, Christoffel uses the same technique' He starts
with
F:>g,"dx,dx"
and
F':>ei"d!,dv*
The translormation is
xi : xi(lu lzr "',Y"), i:1,2,...,n.

898 THE DTFFEREITIAL cEoMETRy oF cAuss AND RTEMANN
He lets S: lg-1. Then if A,, is the cofactor of g," in the determinant let
gn : Lrolg. He, lile Riemann, introduces independently the four index
rymbol (without the comma)
(gkhi) : *L,ttn,kf - *,lgi,kl +){{ru,t}Vr,hl - {gh,p}tik,p)).

He then deduces n(n + l)12 p".tia aif.r"ntial equations for the r, as
functions of the gr. A typical one is
f s,,*%nfi: r'",.
Thcse equations are the necessary and sufficient conditions that a trans-
formation exist for which F : F'.
Partly to treat the integrability of this set of equations and partly
because Christoffel wishes to consider forms of degree higher than two in the
dr,, he performs a number of differentiations and algebraic steps which show
that
(27) (,sly)',:
,z..rtrrr#'il*%,#,,
where c, B, y, and 6 take all values from I to n. There are n2(nz - l)ll2
equations of this form. These equations are the necessary and sufficient
conditions for the equivalence of two differential forms of fourth order.
Indeed let d(7,x, d<ztx, d$tx, dtr>x be four sets ofdifferentials ofx and likewise
for the y's. Then if we have the quadrilinear form
Gr : (gkhi)d<rrxotl@)x*d,@)xod,@)x,
>
g,k,h,t
the relations (27) are necessary and sufficient that G, : Gi, where Gl is the
analogue of G. in the y variables.
This theory can be generalized to p-ply differential forms. In lact
Christoffel introduces
It;"'lt
where the term in parentheses is defined in terms of the 9,, much as the four
index symbol is and the symbol ? is used to distinguish the. differentials of the
set of*, from the set obtained by applying ?. He then shows that
(2e) (as2...a,)': Z ti. ,,

*%, #,
INVARIANIS OF DIFFERENTIAL FORMS Bgg
and obtains necessary and sufficient conditions that Gu be transformable

irrto G'u.
He gives next a general procedure whereby from a p-ply lorm Gu a
(p+ l)-ply form Gu*1can be derived. The key step is to inroduce
a
(30) (i.i2. . .iui) : .i,)
ax-:-,(iiz--
- ) t{;;,, rx&...,r)
These (p * l)-index symbols are the coefficients of the Go*, form. The
procedure Christoffel uses here is what Ricci and Levi-Civita later called
covariant differentiation (Chap. a8).
Whereas Christoffel wrote only one key paper on Riemannian geometry,
Rudolph Lipschitz, professor of mathematics at Bonn University, wrote a
great number appearing in the Journal fiir Mathtmatik from 1869 on. Though
there are some generalizations of the work of Beltrami and Christoffel, the
essential subject matter and results are the same as those of the latter two
men. He did produce some new results on subspaces of Riemannian and
Euclidean n-dimensional spaces.
The ideas projected by Riemann and developed by his three immediiate
successors suggested hosts of new problems in both Euclidean and Rieman-
nian differential geometry. In particular the results already obtained in the
Euclidean case for three dimensions were generalized to curves, surfaces, and
higher-dimensional forms in z dimensions. Of many results we shall citc just
one.
In 1886 Friedrich Schur (1856-1932) proved the theorem named after
him.16 In accordance with Riemann's approach to the notion of curvature,
Schur speaks ofthe curvature ofan orientation ofspace. Such an orientation
is determined by a pencil of geodesics pa * AB where cr and p are the
directions of two geodesics issuing from a point. This pencil forms a surface
and has a Gauss curvature which Schur calls the Riemannian curvature of
that orientation. His theorem then states that if at each point the Riemannian
curvature of a space is independent of the orientation then the Riemannian
curvature is constant throughout the space. The manifold is then a space of
constant curvature.
5. Inaariants of Difierential Forms

It was clear from the study ofthe question ofwhen a given expression for /.r2
can be transformed by a transformation of the form
(31) h : xl*i, xL, " ', x'*), i:t,2,...,n
16. Math. Ann.,27, 1886, 167-72 and 537-67.
9OO THE DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY OF GAUSS AND RIEMANN
to another such expression with preservation ofthe value ofdsa that different
coordinate representations can be obtained for the very same manifold.
However, the geometrical properties of the manifold must be independent of
the particular coordinate system used to represent and study it. Analytically
these geometrical properties would be represented by invariants, that is,
expressions which retain their form under the change of coordinates and
which will consequently have the same value at a given point. The invariants
of interest in Riemannian geometry involve not only the fundamental
quadratic form, which contains the differentials dx1 and dxp but may also
contain derivatives of the coefficients and ofother functions. They are there-
fore called differential invariants.
To use the two-dimensional case as an example, if
(32) dsz : E dus * 2F duda + G da2
is the element of distance for a surface then the Gaussian curvature r( is

given by formula (8) above. If now the coordinates are changed to
(33) y' :f(u,o), x' : g(u,a)
then there is the theorem that if E du2 * 2F du da + G daz transforms into
E'du'z + 2F' tlu'da' * G'da'z then .I( : r(', where i('is the same expres-
sion as in (B) but in the accented variables. Hence the Gaussian curvature of
a surface is a scalar invariant. The invariant r( is said to be an invariant
attached to the form (32) and involves only E, F, and G and their derivatives.
The study of differential invariants was actually initiated in a more
limited context by Lam6. He was interested in invariants under trans-
formations from one orthogonal curvilinear coordinate system in three
dimensions to another. For rectangular Cartesian coordinates he showed 17
that
(34) o,4: (#) . G+)', . (Tr")',

(35)
azd azd azd
L"6:--L-+:^+:+
og' oz'
are differential invariants (he called them differential parameters). Thus il
{ is transformed into 4'@' , y' , z') under an orthogonal transformation
(rotation of axes) then
(*)' . (#)' . (?")' : (Yuo)' * (#)' . (,+)'

at the same point whose coordinates arc (x,y, z) in the original system and
(*',y', r') in the new coordinate system. The analogous equation holds for
Lr6.
17. Jour. de I'Ecole Poly,, 14, 1834, l9l-288,

INVARIANTS OF DIFFERENTIAL FORMS 90r
For orthogonal curvilinear coordinates in Euclidean space where dJ2
has the form
(36) dsz : gtrdu? + gzz dul + gssdul
Lam6 showed (I*gons rur les coordonn4es curttilignes, 1859, cf. above Chapter 28,
sec. 5) that the divergence of the gradient of /, which in rectangular co-
ordinates is given by Ar{ above, has the invariant form
^'4:#ttÛ*#,).*U*#)
.*"u*#))
Incidentally in this same work Lam6 gave conditions on when the ds' given
by (36) determines a curvilinear coordinate system in Euclidean space and,
if it does, how to change to rectangular coordinates.
The investigation of invariants for the theory of surfaces was first made
by Beltrami.l8 }fe gave the two differential invariants
: E*-Bu{r(^4)' - zra},ff +
^,6 "(#)')
and
| (a lG6"-Fd,\ a l-F6"+Ed,\l
u,e:-^/Ec-=-Fatu\;7rt-nc_eil-d,\Gffi )l'
These have geometrical meaning. For example in the case of ArC, if AIC : 1,
the curves $(u,o) : const. are the orthogonal trajectories ofa family of
geodesics on the surflace.
The search for differential invariants was carried over to quadratic
diflerential forms in z variables. The reason again was that these invariants
are independent of particular choices of coordinates; they rePresent intrinsic
properties of the manifold itself. Thus the Riemann curvature is a scalar
invariant.
Beltrami, using a method given byJacobi,lo succeeded in carrying over
to n-dimensional Riemannian spaces the Lam6 invariants.2o Let g as usual
be the determinant of the g,1 and let g" be the cofactor divided by g of gu
in g. Then Beltrami showed that Lam6's first invariant becomes
a,(d) :S,ua4a{.
f;- 0x,0x1
18. Gi.or, tli Mat.,2, 1864,267-82, and, succeeding papers in Vols. 2 and 3 = Olcru Mat.,
l, 107-98.
19. Jour.ffrr Math.,36, 1848, I13-34: We*e,2, 193'216.
20. Memorie dcll' Accademia dclle Scienze dell' Istituto di Bologna, (2), 8, 1868' 551-90 :
Opeft Mat., 2, 7+-118.
go2 THE DTFTERENTIAL GEOUETRY OF GAUSS AND RIEMANN
This is the general form for the square of the gradient of{. For the second of
Lam€'s invariants Beltrami obtained
A,(C) :t"1-",@1-#)
Hc also introduced the mixed differential invariant
A,@{)
aia{.
:S ,u dxr4xt
fi"
This is the general form of the scalar product of the gradiens of { and ry'.
Of course the form ds2 is itselfan invariant under a change ofcoordinates.
From this, as we found in the previous siction, Christoffel derived higher
order differential forms, his G. and G, which are also invariants. Moreover,
he showed how Iiom G, one can derive Gu*r, which is also an invariant. The
construction of such invariants was also pursued by Lipschitz. The number
and variety are extensive. As we shall see this theory of differential invariants
was the inspiration for tensor analysis.
Bibliograplry
Bcltrami, Eugenio: Ofotc matcnaticlu, 4 vols., Ulrico Hoepli, 1902-20.
CXifford, William K.: Matlumatiral Palas, Macmillan, 1882; Chelsea (reprint),
1968.
Coolidgc, Julian L.: A HirW of Gcomctital Methods, Dover (reprint), 1963,
pp. 35${7.
buykhpilb da Mailumalisclun Wissmsehaftcn, III, Teil 3, various articles, B. G.
Tcubncr, 1902-7.
Gaurs, Carl F.: Weilu, 4, 192-216, 217-58, Kiinigliche Gesellschaft der Wissen-
schaften zu Gottingen, 1880. A translation, " General Investigations of
Curved Surfaces, " has been reprinted by Raven Pres, 1965.
Helmholtz, Hermann von: "Uber die taeiichlichen Grundlagen der Geometrie,"
WisscnschaJtlithc Abhandhmgen, 2, 6 I 0-l 7.
"Uber die Tatsachen, die der Geometrie zum Grunde lieger," Nachrichtcn
Kdnig. Gcs. tb Wiss. zu Gdtt., 15, 1868, 193-221; Wiss. Abh., 2, 618-39.
" Uber den lJrsprung Sinn und Bedeutung der geometrischen Siitze";
English translation, " On the Origin and Significance of Geometrical
Axioms," in Helmholtz: Popular Scicntfu lzctures, Dover (reprint), 1962'
22&49. Also in James R. Newman: The ltorld of Matlumatits, Simon and
Schuster, 1956, Vol. 1, 647-68.
Jammer, Max: Conceqts of Spa*, Harvard University Press, 1954.
Killing, W. : Diz nicht-euklidisclun Raumformen in analgtischu Behandlung, B. G.
Teubner, 1885,
Klein, F.: Vorksungcn nbcr dir Entwicklung der Mathcmatik im 19. Jahrhundcrt, Chelsea
(reprint), 1950, Vol. 1,6-62; YoL 2, 147-2O6.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 9O3
Pierpont, James: " Some Modern Views of Space," Amer. Math. Soe . Bull., 32,
1926, 225-s8.
Riemann, Bernhard: Gesammeltc mathematische Wnke, 2rrd ed., Dover (reprint),
1953, pp. 272'87 and 391-404.
Russell, Bertrand: An Essay on the Foundations of Geomztry (1897), Dover (reprint),
1956.
Smith, David E.: ASource Book in Mathematics, Dover (reprint), 1959' Vol. 2, 41 l-25,
463-75. This contains translations of Riemann's 1854 paper and Gauss's
1822 paper.
: " Gauss als Geometer," Nachrichten Kdnig. Gu. d* lUiss. zu Giit'',
Staeckel, P.
1917, Beiheft, 25-140; also in Werlce, l0z.
Weatherburn, C. E. : " The Development of Multidimensional Differential
Geometry," Australian and Ncw Zealand Ass'n for the Adttanccment of Scbue,
21, 193s, 12-28.
3B
Projective and Metric Geometry
But it should always be required that a mathematical subject
not be considered exhausted until it has become intuitively
evident . . . FELI)( KLEIN
l. Introduction
Prior to and during the work on non-Euclidean geometry, the study of
projective properties was the major geometric activity. Moreover, it was
evident from the work of von Staudt (Chap. 35, sec. 3) that projective
geometry is logically prior to Euclidean geometry because it deals with
qualitative and descriptive properties that enter into the very formation of
geometrical figures and does not use the measures of line segments and
angles. This fact suggested that Euclidean geometry might be some special-
ization of projective geometry. With the non-Euclidean geometries now at
hand the possibility arose that these, too, at least the ones dealing with spaces
of constant curyature, might be specializations of projective geometry. Hence
the relationship of projective geometry to the non-Euclidean geometries,
which are metric geometries because distance is employed as a fundamental
concept, became a subject of research. The clarification of the relationship
of projective geometry to Euclidean and the non-Euclidean geometries is the
great achievement of the work we are about to examine. Equally vital was the
establishment of the consistency of the basic non-Euclidean geometries.
2. Surfaces as Models of Non-Euclifuan Geometry

The non-Euclidean geomeries that seemed to be most significant after
Riemann's work were those of spaces of constant curvature. Riemann him-
selfhad suggested in his lB54 paper that a space ofconstant positive curvature
in two dimensions could be realized on a surface of a sphere provided the
geodesic on the sphere was taken to be the " straight line." This non-
Euclidean geometry is now referred to as double elliptic geometry for reasons
which will be clearer later. Prior to Riemann's work, the non-Euclidean
geometry of Gauss, Lobatchevsky, and Bolyai, which Klein later called
90.4
SURFACES AS MODELS OF NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY 905
Figure 38.1
hyperbolic geometry, had been inroduced as the geometry in a plane in

which ordinary (and necessarily infinite) straight lines are the geodesics. The
relationship of this geometry to Riemann's varieties was not clear' Riemann
and Minding t had thought about surfaces of constant negative curvature
but neither man related these to hyperbolic geometry.
2
Independently of Riemann, Beltrami recognized that surfaces of con-
stant curvature are non-Euclidean spaces. He gave a limited rePresentation
of hyperbolic geometry on a surface,s which showed that the geometry of a
restricted portion of the hyperbolic plane holds on a surface of constant
negative curvature if the geodesics on this surface are taken to be the straight
linis. The Iengths and angles on the surface are the lengths and angles of the
ordinary Euclidean geometry on the surfiace. One such surface is known as
the pseudosphere (Fig. 38.1). It is generated by revolving a curve called
the tractrix about its asymPtote. The equation of the tractrix is
\/F-=7
z: klog
k+
- \/r=7
and the equation of the surface is
z: ktos{*=7
yrc'+!' - t/-p- az - Yz'
The curvature of the surface is -llkz. Thus the pseudosphere is a model for
a limited portion of the plane of Gauss, Lobatchevsky, and Bolyai' On the
pseudosphere a figure may be shifted about and just bending will make it
confo"- to the surface, as a plane figure by bending can be fitted to the
surface of a circular cylinder.
l. Jour. filr Math., 19, 1839, 370-87.
2. Annali di Mat., 7, 1866, f85-204 : O?ere Mat., l, 262-40'
3. Gior. di Mat., 6, 1868,248-312 : O?$e Mst., l, 374.405'
906 PRoJEcrrvE AND METRTC GEoMETRY
Beltrami had shown that on a surliace of negative constant curyature one

can realize a piccc of the Lobatchevskian plane. However, there is no regular
analytic surface ofnegative constant curvature on which the geometry ofthe
cntire Labatchanskian plane is valid. All such surfaces have a singular curve-
the tangcnt plane is not continuous across it-so that a continuation of the
surface across this curve will not continue the figures that rePresent those of
Lobatchevsky's geometry. This result is due to Hilbert.a
In this connection it is worth noting that Heinrich Liebmann (l87't-
1939)E proved that the sphere is the only closed analytic surface (free of
singularities) of constant positive curvature and so the only one that can be
usd .N a Euclidean model for double elliptic geometry.
The development of these models helped the mathematicians to
undentand and see meaning in the basic non-Euclidean geometries. One
must keep in mind that these geometries, in the two-dimensional case, are
fundamentally geometries of the plane in which the lines and angles are the
usual lines and angles of Euclidean geometry. While hyperbolic geometry
had been developed in this fashion, the conclusions still seemed strange to the
matlrematicians and had been only grudgingly admitted into mathematics.
The double elliptic geometry, suggested by Riemann's differential geometric
approach, did not even have an axiomatic development as a geometry of the
plane. Hence the only meaning mathematicians could see for it was that
provided by the geometry on the sphere. A far better understanding of the
nature of these geometries was secured through another development that
sought to relate Euclidean and projective geometry.
3. Projectiae and Metri.c Geometry

Though Poncelet had introduced the distinction between projective and
metric properties of figures and had stated in his Traiili of lB22 that the
projective properties were logically more fundamental, it was von Staudt
who began to build up projective geometry on a basis independent of length
and angle size (Chap. 35, sec. 3). In 1853 Edmond Laguerre (1834-86), a
professor at the Colltge de France, though primarily interested in what
happens to angles under a projective transformation, actually advanced the
goal of establishing metric properties of Euclidean geometry on the basis of
4, Amer. Math, Soc., Ttars.,2, 1901, 86-99 = Ges. Abh.,2, +3748. The proof and further
historical details can be found in Appendix V of David Hilbert's Gtundlagen du Gcomebie,
7th cd., B. G. Tcubner, 1930. The theorem presupposes that thc lines of hyperbolic
geometry would be the geodesics of thc surface and thc lengths and angles would be the
Euclidean lengths and angles on the surface.
5. Nacbichacn Kdnig, G*. dcr Wiss. zt Giitt., 1899' 't*-55; Math' Ann.,53, 1900, 8l-l 12; and
s4, r901,505-17.
PROJBCTIVE AND METRIC GEOMETRY 907
projective concepts by supplying a projective basis for the measure of an

angle.6
To obtain a measure of the angle between two given intersecting lines
one can consider two lines through the origin and parallel respectively to the
two given lines. Let the two lines through the origin have the equations (in
nonhomogeneous coordinates) g: xtafi 0 andg : xtar^ 0'.Letg: i7 ar6
! : -i* be two (imaginary) lines from the origin to the circular points at
infinity, that is, the points (1, i,0) and (1, -t,0). Call these four lines
u, ttr', to, and zo' respectively. Let { be the angle between z and u'. Then
Laguerre's result is that
(r) 6-o'-e:|rcs(uu',ww'),
where (uu', z'a') is the cross ratio of the four lines.T What is significant about
the expression (l) is that it may be taken as the definition of the size of an
angle in terms ofthe projective concept ofcross ratio. The logarithm function
is, of course, purely quantitative and may be introduced in any geometry.
Independently of Laguerre, Cayley made the next step. He approached
geometry from the standpoint of algebra, and in fact was interested in the
geometric interpretation of quantics (homogeneous polynomial forms), a
subject we shall consider in Chapter 39. Seeking to show that metrical
notions can be formulated in projective terms he concentrated on the relation
of Euclidean to projective geometry. The work we are about to describe is in
his " Sixth Memoir upon Quantics."s
Cayley's work proved to be a generalization of Laguerre's idea. The
latter had used the circular points at infinity to define angle in thc plane.
The circular points are really a degenerate conic. In two dimensions Cayley
introduced any conic in place of the circular points and in three dimensions
he introduced any quadric surface. These figures he called the absolute.
Cayley asserted that all metric properties of figures are none other than
projective properties augmented by the absolute or in relation to the
absolute. He then showed how this principle led to a new o<pression for
angle and an expression for distance between two points.
He starts with the fact that the points of a plane are represented by
homogeneous coordinates. These coordinates are not to be regarded as
distances or ratios of distances but as an assumed fundamental notion not
6. Nouoclles Annsles dc Mathlmatiqucs, 12, 1853, 5746 = (Euons,2,6-15.

7. The cross ratio is itself a complex number. Thc coefficicnt i/2 cnsurcs that a riSht
angle has size tl2, The computation of such cross ratios can bc found in texts on projcc-
tive geomctry. See, for example, William C. Graustein: hilrothution lo Highcr Gunutry
'
Macmillan, 1933, Chap. 8.
8. Phil. Trans., 149, 1859, 6l-91 : Coll. Math. Papcrs,2, 561-606.
PROJECTTVE AND METRTC GEOMETRY
9OB
requiring or admitting of explanation. To define distance and size of angle
he introduces the quadratic form
3
F(x,x): ou*r*,, at!:att

)
t,t=7
and the bilinear form
F(*,y) : Z ou*r,.
I'l =l
The equation F(x, x) :0

defines a conic which is Cayley's absolute' The
equation of the absolute in Iine coordinates is
G(u,u) : *,,,,,: o,
)
t,t =r
whete Alt is the cofactor of arl in the determinant lal of the coefficients of F.
Cayley now defines the distance 6 between two points r and y, where
x : (xr, xr, xs) and g : (!b!2,!s), by the formula
F(x.u\
(2) E : arc cos
lF\jpffifi-uz'
The angle { between two lines whose line coordinates are u : (ur, u2, ur) ar,d
a : (ot ur, a.) is defined by
(3) cos p, : @6id6ny,'

G(u, a)
These general formulas become simple if we take for the absolute the
particular conic xf + xZ+ x3:0. Then if (av a2, a.) and (b1,b2,br) are
the homogeneous coordinates of two points, the distance between them is
given by
14t
\.,/ --urr.r-"@
--- tffia2,
a az, I o\{b? + bZ + bZ
and the angle { between two lines whose homogeneous line coordinates are
(ur, u2, ur) and (u1, a2, us) is given bY
(5) cos{:ffi
With respect to the exPression for distance if we use the shorthand that
tr! : xrlt * xzlz * x3y" then, if a : (at a2, as), band a are three points on
a line,
ab + arc
-----:---
bc
---------= : arc COS
ac
---F---F'
ZrC COS COS
t/ aa{ bb ! bb! cc ! aaY cc
PROJECTTVE AND METRIC CEOMETRY 9O9
That is, the distances add as they should. By taking the absolute conic to be
the circular points at infinity, (1, i,0) and (1, -r,0), Cayley showed that
his formulas for distance and angle reduce to the usual Euclidean formulas.
It will be noted that the expressions for length and angle involve the
algebraic expression for the absolute. Generally the analytic expression ofany
Euclidean metrical property involves the relation of that property to the
absolute. Metrical properties are not ProPerties ofthe figure per se but ofthe
figure in relation to the absolute. This is Cayley's idea of the general pro-
jective determination of metrics. The place of the metric concept in Pro-
jective geometry and the greater generality of the latter were described by
Cayley as, " Metrical geometry is part of projective geometry."
Cayley's idea was taken over by Felix Klein ( 1849-1925) and generalized
include the non-Euclidean geometries. Klein, a professor at Gtittingen,
so as to
was one of the leading mathematicians in Germany during the last part of the
nineteenth and first part of the twentieth century. During the years 1869-70
he learned the work of Lobatchevsky, Bolyai, von Staudt, and Cayley;
however, even in 1B7l he did not know Laguerre's result. It seemed to him
to be possible to subsume the non-Euclidean geometries, hyperbolic and
double elliptic geometry, under projective geometry by exploiting Cayley's
idea. He gave a sketch of his thoughts in a paper of lBTl e and then developed
them in two papers.lo Klein was the first to recognize that we do not need
surfaces to obtain models of non-Euclidean geometries.
To start with, Klein noted that Cayley did not make clear just what he
had in mind for the meaning of his coordinates. They were either simply
variables with no geometrical interPretation or they were Euclidean
distances. But to derive the metric geometries from projective Seometry it $'as
necessary to build up the coordinates on a projective basis. Von Staudt had
shown (Chap. 35, sec. 3) that it was Possible to assign numbers to points by
his algebra of throws. But he used the Euclidean parallel axiom. It seemed
clear to Klein that this axiom could be dispensed with and in the 1873 paper
he shows that this can be done. Ilence coordinates and cross ratio of four
points, four lines, or four planes can be defined on a purely projective basis.
Klein's major idea was that by specializing the nature of Cayley's
absolute quadric surface (if one considers three-dimensional geometry) one
could show that the metric, which according to Cayley depended on the
nature of the absolute, would yield hyperbolic and double elliptic geometry.
When the second degree surface is a real ellipsoid, real elliptic paraboloid, or
real hyperboloid of two sheets one gets Lobatchevsky's metric geometry, and
when the second degree surface is imaginary one gets Riemann's non-
Euclidean geometry (of constant positive curvature). If the absolute is
9. Nachichten Kdnig. Gx, der W*s. zu Gatt., 1871,419-33 = Ges- Math. Abh., l' 244-53.
10. Math. Ann., 4, 1871, 573425; and 6, 1873, 11245 : Gx. Math' Abh., l' 254-305'
31t43.
9to PROJECTTVE AND METRTC GEOIUETRY
Figurc a8.2
taLen to be the sphere-circle, whose equation in homogeneous coordinates is

x' + g' * z2 : 0, t : 0, then the usual Euclidean metric geometry obtains.
Thus t}te metric geometries become special cases of projective geometry.
To appreciate Klein's ideas let us consider two-dimensional geometry.
One chooses a conic in the projective plane; this conic will be the absolute'
Its eqtration is
(6) r: > a1pp1: o
in point coordinates and

0
(7) G: > Atru,u,:o
in line coordinates. To derive Lobatchevsky's geometry the conic must be

real, e.g. in plane homogeneous coordinates rf + tcl - iZ : 0; for Riemann's
geometry on a surface of constant positive curvature it is imaginary, for
example, x? + xZ + .r"s : 6t and for Euclidean geometry, the conic degen-
erates into two coincident lines represented in homogeneous coordinates by
xs :
0 and on this locus one chooses two imaginary points whose equation is
4. + *A : 0, that is, the circular points at infinity whose homogeneous
coordinates are (1, i,0) and (1, -i, 0). In every case the conic has a real
equation.
To be specific let us suppose the conic is the one shown in Figure 38.2.
If P, and P, are two points of a line, this line meets the absolute in two
points (real or imaginary). Then the distance is taken to be
(B) d : clog (PrPr, QrQ)'
where the quantity in parentheses denotes the cross ratio of the four points
and a is a constant. This cross ratio can be expressed in terms of the co-
PROJECTTVE AND METRIC CEOMETRY 9II
ordinates of the points. Moreover, if there are three points Pr, P2, Pr on the
line then it can readily be shown that
(P,Pr, QrQr)'(P,P"' QrQ) : (Pis, QtQz)
so that PtP, * PzPs :
PtPs.
Likewise if z and are two lines (Fig. 38.3) one considers the tangents,
u
and ro from their point of intersection to the absolute (the tangents may be
imaginary lines) ; then the angle between u and' u is defined to be
6 : c'log (ua, tu),
where again c' is a constant and the quantity in parentheses dcnotcs the
cross ratio of the four lines.
To express the values of d and { analytically and to show their depend-
ence upon the choice of the absolute, let the equation of the absolute be
given byFand G above. By definition
: Z
g
F*o otr*ryt.
t,! -r
One can now show that if .r : (rcr, xz, xs) and ! : (!y !lz, ys) are thc
coordinates of P1 and P, then
4: r1orF*o
+ {FFF-4,'.'
" F*, - \/Fly - F,;Fy,
Likewise, if (u1, u2, z3) and (oba2,ts) are the coordinates of the two lines,
then one can show, using G, that
" G,n - lTiu

o: rr*9"'* \/Glu -
9:*' Guucou
The constant c' is generally taken to be i/2 so as to make C real and a complctc
central angle 2zr.
Klein used the logarithmic expressions above for angle and distancc and
showed how the metric geometries can be derived from projcctive Seomctry'
9r2 PROJECTIVE AND METRIC GEOMETRY
Thus ifone starts with projective geometry then by his choice ofthe absolute
and by using the above expressions for distance and angle one can get the
Euclidean, hyperbolic, and elliptic geometries as special cases' The nature of
the metric geometry is fixed by the choice of the absolute. Incidentally,
Klein's expressions for distance and angle can be shown to be equal to
Cayley's.
If one makes a projective (i.e. linear) transformation of the projective
plane into itself which transforms the absolute into itself (though points on
the absolute go into other points) then because cross ratio is unaltered by a
linear transformation, distance and angle will be unaltered. These particular
Iinear transformations which leave the absolute fixed are the rigid motions or
congruence transformations of the particular metric geometry determined by
the absolute. A general projective transformation will not leave the absolute
invariant. Thus projective geometry proper is more general in the trans-
formations it allows.
Another contribution of Klein to non-Euclidean geometry was the
observation, which he says he first made in l87l11 but published in l\74,t2
that there are two kinds of elliptic geometry. In the double elliptic geometry
two points do not always determine a unique straight line. This is evident
from the spherical model when the two points are diametrically opposite. In
the second elliptic geometry, called single elliptic, two points always deter-
mine a unique straight line. When looked at from the standpoint of differ-
ential geometry, the differential form ds2 of a surface of constant positive
curvature is (in homogeneous coordinates)
: dx?+dxZ+dx?
ds2
1r+@214)(x?+xl+xl))2
In both cases a2 > 0. However, in the first type the geodesics are curves
of finite length 2trf a or if .R is the radius, 2rR, and are closed (return upon
themselves). In the second the geodesics are of length tla or tiR and are still
closed.
A model of a surface which has the properties of single elliptic geometry
and which is due to Klein,l3 is provided by a hemisphere including the
boundary. However, one must identily any two points on the boundary
which are diametrically opposite. The great circular arcs on the hemisphere
are the " straight lines" or geodesics ofthis geometry and the ordinary angles
on the surface are the angles of the geometry. Single elliptic geometry
(sometimes called elliptic in which case double elliptic geometry is called
spherical) is then also realized on a space of constant positive curvature.
ll. Math. Ann.,4, 1871,604. See also, Math. Ann.,6, 1873, 125; and, Math. Ant.,37,1890'
554-57 .
12. Math. Am., 7, 1874, 549-57 ; 9, 1876, 476-82 : Ges. mqth. Abh., 2' 63-77 .
13- See the references in footnote I l.

MODELS AND THE CONSISTENCY PROBLEM 9r3
One cannot actually unite the pairs of points which are identified in this
model at least in three-dimensional space. The surface would have to cross
itselfand points that coincide on the intersection would have to be regarded
as distinct.
We can now see why Klein introduced the terminology hyperbolic for
Lobatchevsky's geometry, elliptic for the case of Riemann's geometry on a
surface ofconstant positive curvature, and parabolic for Euclidean geometry.
This terminolog'y was suggested by the fact that the ordinary hyperbola
meets the line at infinity in two points and correspondingly in hyperbolic
geometry each line meets the absolute in two real points. The ordinary
ellipse has no real points in common with the line at infinity and in elliptic
geometry, likewise, each line has no real points in common with the absolute.
The ordinary parabola has only one real point in common with the line at
infinity and in Euclidean geometry (as extended in projective geometry)
each line has one real point in common with the absolute.
The import which gradually emerged from Klein's contributions
was that projective geometry is really logically independent of Euclidean
geometry. Moreover, the non-Euclidean and Euclidean geometries were also
seen to be special cases or subgeometries of projective geometry. Actually the
strictly logical or rigorous work on the axiomatic foundations of projective
geometry and its relations to the subgeometries remained to be done (Chap.
42). But by making apparent the basic role of projective geometry Klein
paved the way for an axiomatic development which could start with pro-
jective geometry and derive the several metric geometries from it.
4. Models and the Consistencg Problem

By the early l870s several basic non-Euclidean geometries, the hyperbolic
and the two elliptic geometries, had been introduced and intensively studied.
The fundamental question which had yet to be answered in order to make
these geometries legitimate branches of mathematics was whether they were
consistent. All of the work done by Gauss, Lobatchevsky, Bolyai, Riemann,
Cayley, and Klein might still have proved to be nonsense if contradictions
were inherent in these geometries.
Actually the proof of the consistency of two-dimensional double
elliptic geometry was at hand, and possibly Riemann appreciated this fact
though he made no explicit statement, Beltrami la had pointed out that
Riemann's two-dimensional geometry of constant positive curvature is
realized, on a sphere. This model makes possible the proof of the consistency
of two-dimensional double elliptic geometry. The axioms (which were not
explicit at this time) and the theorems of this geometry are all applicable to
14. Annali di Mat., (2),2, 1868-69, 232-55 : Opcre Matemathhe, l, 406-29'

9r4 PROJECTWE AND METRTC GEOMETRY
the geometry of the surface of the sphere provided that line in the double
elliptic geometry is interpreted as great circle on the surface of the sphere. If
there should be contradictory theorems in this double elliptic geometry then
there would be contradictory theorems about the geometry of the surface
of the sphere. Now the sphere is part of Euclidean geometry. Hence if
Euclidean geometry is consistent, then double elliptic geometry must also
be so. To the mathematicians of the 1870s the consistency of Euclidean
geometry was hardly oPen to question because, apart from the views of a
few men such as Gauss, Bolyai, Lobatchevsky, and Riemann, Euclidean
geometry was still the necessary geometry of the physical world and it was
inconccivablc that there could be contradictory properties in the geometry
of the physical world. However, it is imPortant, especially in the Iight of later
developments, to realize that this proof of the consistency of double elliptic
geometry depends upon the consistency of Euclidean geometry.
The metlrod of proving the consistency of double elliptic geometry
could not be used for single elliptic geometry or ficr hyperbolic geometry.
The hemispherical model of single elliptic geometry cannot be realized in
three-dimensional Euclidean geometry though it can be in four-dimensional
Euclidean geometry. If one were willing to believe in the consistency of the
latter, then one might accept the consistency of single elliptic geometry.
Howwer, though z-dimensional geometry had already been considered by
Grassmann, Riemann, and others, it is doubtful that any mathematician of
thc l870s would have been willing to affirm the consistency of four-
dimensional Euclidean geometry.
The case for the consistency of hyperbolic geometry could not be made
on any such grounds. Beltrami had given the pseudospherical interpretation,
which is a surface in Euclidean space, but this serves as a model for only a
linited region of hyperbolic geometry and so could not be used to establish
the consistency of the entire geometry. Lobatchevsky and Bolyai had con-
sidered this problem (Chap. 36, sec. B) but had not been able to settle it.
As a matter of fact, though Bolyai proudly published his non-Euclidean
geometry, there is evidence that he doubted its consistency because in papers
found after his death he continued to try to prove the Euclidean parallel
axiom.
The consistency of the hyperbolic and single elliptic geometries was
established by new models. The model for hyperbolic geometry is due to
Beltrami.l6 However, the distance function used in this model is due to Klein
and the model is often ascribed to him' Let us consider the two-dimensional
cr$e.
Within the Euclidean plane (which is part of the projective plane) one
selects a real conic which one may as well take to be a circle (Fig. 3B'4)'
15. Annali di MaL, 7, 1866, 185-204 : Ol*c Mat., l, 262-80; Gior. di Mat', 6' 1868,
284-312 = Op.re Mdt., l' 37+-q5.
MODEf,Ii AND THE CONSISTENCY PROBLEM 9r5
Figure 38.
According to this representation of hyperbolic geometry the points of the

geometry are the points interior to this circle. A line of this geometry is a
chord of the circle, say the chord Xf (but not including X and Y). If we
take any point Q not on XI then we can find any number of lines through
Q which do not meet XY.Two of these lines, namely, QX and QI, separate
the lines through Q into two classes, those lines which crrt XY and those
which do not. In other words, the parallel axiom of hyperbolic geometry is
satisfied by the points and lines (chords) interior to the circle. Further, let
the size of the angle formed by two lines a and b be
4(a, b) : lrog
(ab, nn),
where zl and n are the conjugate imaginary tangents from the vertex ofthe
angle to the circle and (ab, nn ) is the cross ratio of the four lines a, b, m, and n.
The constant I /2i ensures that a right angle has the measure tl2. The
definition of distance between two Points is given by formula (8), that is,
d : c log (PP' , XY) with e usually taken to be t/2. According to this formula
as P or P' approaches X or Y, the distance PP' becomes infinite. Hence in
terms of this distance, a chord is an infinite line of hyperbolic geometry'
Thus with the projective definitions of distance and angle size, the
points, chords, angles, and other figures interior to the circle satisfly the
axioms of hyperbolic geometry. Then the theorems of hyperbolic geometry
also apply to these figures inside the circle. In this model the axioms and
theorems of hyperbolic geometry are really assertions about special figures
and concepts (e.g. distance defined in the manner of hyperbolic geometry) of
Euclidean geometry. Since the axioms and theorems in question apply to these
figures and concepts, regarded as belonging to Euclidean geometry, all of
the assertions of hyperbolic geometry are theorems of Euclidean 8eometry.
III then, there were a contradiction in hyperbolic Seometry, this contra-
diction would be a contradiction within Euclidean geometry. But if Euclidean
geometrg is consistent, then hyperbolic geometry must also be. Thus the
9r6 PROJECTIVE AND METRIC GEOMETRY
Figurc 38.5
consistency ofhyperbolic geometry is reduced to the consistency ofEuclidean

geometry.
The fact that hyperbolic geometry is consistent implies that the Euclidean
parallel axiom is independent ofthe other Euclidean axioms. If this were not
the case, that is, ifthe Euclidean parallel axiom were derivable from the other
axioms, it would also be a theorem of hyperbolic geometry for, aside from
the parallel axiom, the other axioms of Euclidean geometry are the same as
those of hyperbolic geometry. But this theorem would contradict the parallel
axiom of hyperbolic geometry and hyperbolic geometry would be incon-
sistent. The consistency of two-dimensional single elliptic geometry can be
shown in the same manner as for hyperbolic geometry because this elliptic
geometry is also realized within the projective plane and with the projective
definition of distance.
Independently and in connection with his work on automorphic
functions Poincar6l6 gave another model which also establishes the con-
sistency of hyperbolic geometry. One form in which this Poincar6 model for
hyperbolic plane geometry 1? can be expressed takes the absolute to be a circle
(Fig. 38.5). Within the absolute the straight lines of the geometry are arcs of
circles which cut the absolute orthogonally and straight lines through the
center of the absolute. The length of any segment PrP, is given by
log (PrPr, P.Po), where (PrP,, P"Pb) : gf blP2P)l(PLPJP2P"), Po and Po
are the poins in which the arc through Prand P, cuts the absolute, and the
lengths PrP6, PrPu, etc. are the chords. The angle between two intersecting
"lines" of this model is the normal Euclidean angle between the trvo arcs. .
Two circular arcs which are tangent at a point on the absolute are parallel
16. Acta Math., l, 1882, l-62 : CEutres,2, 108 68; see p. I and p. 52 ofthe paper.
17. This form, attributed to Poincari, is close to one he gave in the Bull. Soc. Malh. de
France, 15, 1887,203-16 : Guares, ll, 79-91. The model described here seems to have
been given first byJoseph Wellstein (1869-1919) in H. Weber andJ.Wellstein, Enzyklopddie
du ElementarMathematik, 2, 1905, 39-81.
GEOMETRY FROM THE TRANSFORMATION VIEWPOINT 9t7
" lines." Since in this model, too, the axioms and theorems of hyperbolic
geometry are special theorems of Euclidean geometry, the argument given
above apropos of the Beltrami model may be applied here to establish the
consistency of hyperbolic geometry. The higher-dimensional analogues of the
above models are also valid.
5. Geometryfrom the Trarcformatiln Viewpoint

Klein's success in subsuming the various metric geometries under projective
geometry led him to seek to charactetize the various geometries notjust on
the basis of nonmetric and metric properties and the distinctions among the
metrics but from the broader standpoint of what these geometries and other
geometries which had already appeared on the scene sought to accomplish.
He gave this characterization in a speech of 1872, " Vergleichende Betracht-
ungen iiber neuere geometrische Forschungen " (A Comparative Review of
Recent Researches in Geometry),18 on the occasion of his admission to the
faculty ofthe University ofErlangen, and the views expressed in it are known
as the Erlanger Programm.
Klein's basic idea is that each geometry can be characterized by a group
of transformations and that a geometry is really concerned with invariants
under this group of transformations. Moreover a subgeometry of a geometry
is the collection of invariants under a subgroup of transformations of the
original group. Under this definition all theorems ofa geometry corresponding
to a given group continue to be theorems in the geometry ofthe subgroup.
Though Klein in his paper does not give the analytical formulations sf
the groups of transformations he discusses we shall give some for the sake of
explicitness. According to his notion of a geometry projective geometry, say
in two dimensions, is the study of invariants under the group of trans-
formations from the points ofone plane to those ofanother or to points ofthe
same plane (collineations) . Each translormation is of the form
x\: atxl * avxz * atsxs
(9) x'2: a2p1 * azzxz * azilts
xL: azicr * azzxz * as*ca
wherein homogeneous coordinates are PresuPPosed, the a, are real numbers,

and the determinant of the coefficients must not be zoro. In nonhomo-
geneous coordinates the transformations are represented by
dtrx + aDY + aLs
x, -- aslx*4s2!tas3
(10)
, orr* *
u:-
a22y * a23
" astr + aa2Y + ass
18. Math. Ann.,43,1893,63-100 = Ges. Math, Abh.,l,460_97- An English translation can

be found in the rV. f. Math. Soc. Bull.,2, 1893' 21549-
9r8 PROJECTTVE AND METRTC GDOMETRY
and again the determinant of the a,, must not be zero. The invariants under
the projective group are, for example, linearity, collinearity, cross ratio,
harmonic sets, and the property of being a conic section.
One subgroup of the projective grouP is the collection of affine trans-
formations.le This subgroup is defined as follows: Let any line /- in the
projective plane be fixed. The points of l- are called ideal points or points
at infinity and /- is called the line at infinity. Other points and lines of the
projective plane are called ordinary points and these are the usual points of
the Euclidean plane. The affine group ofcollineations is that subgroup ofthe
projective group which leaves l. invariant (though not necessarily pointwise)
and affine geometry is the set of properties and relations invariant under the
affine group. Algebraically, in two dimensions and in homogeneous co-
ordinates, the'affine transformations are represented by equations (9) above
but in which lst : asc: 0 and with the same determinant condition' In
nonhomogeneous coordinates affine transformations are given by
x':,rrx+a,ny+4n o,,l
lo'
lrn
* o.
!':azfi*azz!*azs azzl
Under an affine transformation, straight lines go into straight lines, and

parallel straight lines into parallel lines. However, lengths and angle sizes
are altered. Affine geometry was first noted by Euler and then by M<ibius
in his Der baryccntrisclu Calcul. lt is useful in the study of the mechanics of
deformations.
The group of any metric geometry is the same as the affine group except
that the determinant above must have the value * I or - l. The first of the
metric geometries is Euclidean geometry. To define the group of this geometry
one starts with l. and supposes there is a fixed involution on l-' One requires
that this involution has no real double points but has the circular points at
oo as (imaginary) double points. We now consider all projective transforma-
tions which not only leave /.. fixed but carry any point ofthe involution into
its corresponding point of the involution, which implies that each circular
point goes into itself. Algebraically these transformations of the Euclidean
group are represented in nonhomogeneous (two-dimensional) coordinates by
x':p(xcos0-ysind+c)
y' : p@.ir,0+;co.0+F)'
P: +1'
The invariants are length, size of angle, and size and shape of any figure.
Euclidean geometry as the term is used in this classification is the set of
invariants under this class of transformations. The transformations are
rotations, tianslations, and reflections. To obtain the invariants associated
with similar figures, the subgroup of the affine group known as the parabolic
19. Klein did not single out this subgrouP.
GEOMETRY FROM THE TRANSFORMATION VIEW.POINT 9r9
meric group is introduced. This group is defined as the class of projective
transformations which leaves the involution on l. invariant, and this means
that each pair of corresponding points goes into some pair ol corresponding
points. In nonhomogeneous coordinates the transformations ofthe parabolic
metric group are of the form
x':ax-by*c
!':bex+dcy+d
wherein a2 + b2 I 0, and a2 : l. These transformations preserve angle size.
To characterize hyperbolic metric geometry we return to projective
geometry and consider an arbitrary, real, nondegenerate conic (the absolute)
in the projective plane. The subgroup of the projective group which leaves
this conic invariant (though not necessarily pointwise) is called the hyperbolic
metric group and the corresponding geometry is hyperbolic metric geometry.
The invariants are those associated with congruence.
Single elliptic geometry is the geometry corresponding to the subgroup
of projective transformations which leaves a definite imaginary ellipse (the
absolute) of the projective plane invariant. The plane of elliptic geometry is
the real projective plane and the invariants are those associated with'
congruence.
Even double elliptic geometry can be encompassed in this transforma-
tion viewpoint, but one must start with three-dimensional projective
transformations to characterize the two-dimensional metric geometry, The
subgroup of transformations consists of those three-dimensional projective
transformations which transform a definite sphere (surface) S of the 6nite
portion of space into itself. The spherical surface S is the "plane" of double
elliptic geometry. Again the invariants are associated with congruence.
In four metric geometries, that is, Euclidean, hlrycrbolic, and the
two elliptic geometries, the transformations which are permitted in the
corresponding subgroup are what are usually called rigid motions and these
are the only geometries which permit rigid motions..
Klein introduced a number of intermediate classifications which we shall
not repeat here. The scheme below shows the relationships of the principal
geometries.
Projective Scometry
Amnc gcometry Single Doublc Hypcrbolic

elliptic clliptic tloEctry
Scomctry gcomctry
geomctry
Euclidean to-.*
PROJECTTVE AND METRTC GEOMETRY
92O
Klein also considered more general geometries than projective' At this
time ( 1872) algebraic geometry was gradually being distinguished as a
separate discipline and he characterized this geomery by introducing the
transformations which in three dimensions and in nonhomogeneous
coordinates read
s' : g(x,g, z), y, : t!(x,y, z), 7' : y(x,y, z).
He required that the functions $, $, and,1 be rational and single-valued and

that it must be possible to solve for x, g, and z in terms of single-valued
rational functions of x' , y' , z'. These transformations are called Cremona
transformations and the invariants under them are the subject matter of
algebraic geometry (Chap. 39).
Klein also projected the study ofinvariants under one-to-one continuous
transformations with continuous inverses. This is the class now called
homeomorphisms and the study of the invariants under such translormations
is the subject matter of topology (Chap. 50). Though Riemann had also
ionsidered what are now recognized to be topological problems in his work
with Riemann surfaces, the projection of topology as a major geometry was
a bold step in 1872.
It has been possible since Klein's days to make further additions and
specializations of Klein's classification. But not all of geometry can be
incorporated in Klein's scheme. Algebraic geometry today and differential
geometry do not come under this scheme.2o Though Klein's view of geometry
did not prove to be all-embracing, it did aflord a systematic method ol
classifying and studying a good portion of geometry and suggested numer-
ous research problems. His " definition " of geometry guided geometrical
thinking for about fifty years. Moreover, his emphasis on invariants under
transformations carried beyond mathematics to mechanics and mathematical
physics generally. The physical problem of invariance under translormation
or the problem ol expressing physical laws in a manner independent of the
coordinate system became important in physical thinking after the invariance
of Maxwell's equations under Lorentz transformations (a four-dimensional
subgroup of affine geometry) was noted. This line of thinking led to the
special theory ol relativity.
We shall merely mention here further studies on the classification of
geometries which at least in their time attracted considerable attention.
Helmholtz and Sophus Lie (1842-99) sought to cbaracterize geometries in
which rigid motions are possible' Helmholtz's basic paper, " Uber die
Thatsachen, die der Geometrie zum Grunde liegen " (On the Facts Which
20. Klein does speak, in the case of differential geometry, of the group of transformations
which leave the expression for dsz invariant. This leads to diflerential invariants (Ges. math.
Abh., t,487).
TIIE REALITY OF NON-EUCLIDEAN CEOMETRY 927
Underlie Geometry),2l showed that if the motions of rigid bodies are to be

possible in a space then Riemann's expression for d.r in a sPace of constant
turvature is the only one possible. Lie attacked the same problem by what
is called the theory of continuous transformation grouPs, a theory he had
already introduced in the study of ordinary differential equations, and he
characterized the spaces in which rigid motions are possible by means of the
kinds of groups of transformations which these spaces permit.22
6. The Reality of Non-Euclidean Geometrg

The interest in the classical synthetic non-Euclidean geometries and in
projective geometry declined after the work of Klein and Lie Partly because
the essence of these structures was so clearly exposed by the transformation
viewpoint. The feeling of mathematicians so far as the discovery of additional
theorems is concerned was that the mine had been exhausted. The rigoriza-
tion of the foundations remained to be accomplished and this was an active
area for quite a few years after lBB0 (Chap. 42).
Another reason for the loss of interest in the non-Euclidean geometries
was their seeming lack of relevance to the physical world. It is curious that
the first workers in the field, Gauss, Lobatchevsky, and Bolyai did think that
non-Euclidean geometry might prove applicable when further work in
astronomy had been done. But none of the mathematicians who worked in
the later period believed that these basic non-Euclidean geometries would
be physically significant. Cayley, Klein, and Poincar€, though they con-
sidered this matter, affirmed that we would not ever need to improve on or
abandon Euclidean geometry. Beltrami's pseudosphere model had made non-
Euclidean geometry real in a mathematical sense (though not physically)
because it gave a readily visualizable interpretation of Lobatchevsky's
geometry but at the expense of changing the line from the ruler's edge to
geodesics on the pseudosphere. Similarly the Beltrami-Klein and Poincar6
models made sense of non-Euclidean geometry by changing the concePts
either of line, distance, or angle-measure, or of all three, and by picturing
them in Euclidean space. But the thought that physical space under the
usual interpretation of straight line or even under some other interpretation
could be non-Euclidean was dismissed. In fact, most mathematicians
regarded non-Euclidean geometry as a logical curiosity.
Cayley was a staunch supporter of Euclidean space and accepted the
non-Euclidean geometries only so far as they could be realized in Euclidean
space by the use ofnew distance formulas. In lB83 in his presidential address
23
to the British Association for the Advancement of Science he said that
21. Nachrichten Konig. Ges. der l'{iss. zu Gafi,, 15, 1868, 193-221 : Wiss' Abh ,2, 618-39'
22. Theorie der Transformationsgtu\peb 3,437-543, t893.
23. Collected Malh. Papers, 11,429-59.
922 PROJECTTVE AND METRIC GEOMETRY
non-Euclidean spaces were a priori a mistaken idea, but non-Euclidean geom-

etries were acceptable because they resulted merely from a change in the
distance function in Euclidean space. He did not grant independent existence
to the non-Euclidean geometries but regarded them as a class of special
Euclidean structures or as a way of representing projective relations in
Euclidean geometry. It was his view that
Euclid's tlvelfth ltenth] axiom in Playfair's form of it does not need
demonstration but is part of our notion of space, of the physical space of
our own experience-the space, that is, which we become acquainted
with by experience, but which is the representation lying at the foundation
of all external expcriencc.
Riemann's view may be said to be that, having iz inlelhctu a more
general notion of space (in fact a notion of non-Euclidean space), we
lcarn by experience that spacc (the ph1'sical space of expericnce) is, ifnot
eracdy, at least to the highest degree of approximation, Euclidean space.
Klein regarded Euclidean space as the necessary fundamental space. The
other geometries were merely Euclidean with new distance functions. The
non-Euclidean geometrics were in eflect subordinated to Euclidean geometry.
Poincard's judgment was more liberal. Science should always try to use
Euclidean geometry and vary the laws of physics where necessary. Euclidean
geometry may not be true but it is most convenient. One geometry cannot
be more true than another; it can only be more convenient. Man creates
geometry and then adapts the physical laws to it to make the geometry and
laws fit the world. Poincar€ insisted3'that even if the angle sum ofa triangle
should prove to be grcater than l80o it would be better to assume that
Euclidean g€ometry dcscribes physical space. and that light travels along
curves because Euclidean geometry is simpler. Of coume events proved he
was wrong. It
is not the simplicity of the geometry alone that counts for
science but the simplicity of the entire scientific theory. Clearly the mathe-
maticians of the nineteenth century were still tied to tradition in their
notions about what makes physical sense. The advent of the theory of
relativity forced a drastic change in the attitude toward non-Euclidean
geometry.
The delusion of mathematicians that what they are working on at the
moment is the most imPortant conceivable subject is illustrated again by
their attitude toward projective geometry. The work we have examined in
this chapter does indeed show that projective geometry is fundamental to
many geometries. However, it does not embrace the evidently vital Rie-
mannian geometry and the growing body of algebraic geonletry. Neverthe-
24. Bull. Soc. Math. dc Francc, 15, 1887, 203-16 : (Euares, 11,79-91. He expressed this
view again in an article "Les G6omdtries non-euclidiennes " in the Reaue G,iuirqle des
Scicrux,2, 1891, #23. An English ranslation is in Nature,45, 1892, '10'[-7. See also his
Scictuc aad Hypotlusir, Chapter 3, it Thc Foundatiorc of Sciuue, The Science Press, 1946.
923
less, Cayley affirmed in his lB59 paper (sec. 3) that, " Projective geometry
is all geometry and reciprocally." 2s Bertrand Russell in his Essay on the
Foundations oJ Geometrg (1897) also believed that projective Seometry was
necessarily the a priori form of any geometry of physical space. Hermann
Hankel, despite the attention he gave to history,2s did not hesitate to say in
1869 that projective geometry is the royal road to all mathematics. Our
examination of the developments already recorded shows clearly that
mathematicians can readily be carried away by their enthusiasms.
Bibliographg
Beltrami, Eugenio: Opue matcmatiche, Ulrico Hoepli, 1902, Vol. l.
Bonola, Roberto: Non-Euclidean Geometry, Dover (reprint), 1955, pp. 129-264.
Coolidge, Julian L. : A History oJ Geomttrical Methods, Dover (reprint), 1963' pp.
68-87.
Klein, Felix: Gesammelte mathcmati.sche Abhandlungcn, lrt lius Springer, l92l-23' Vols.
I and 2.
Pasch, Moritz, and Max Dehn: Vorlcsungen iiber newte Geomelrie, 2nd ed.' Julius
Springer, 1926, pp. 185-239.
Pierpont, James: " Non-Euclidean Geometry. A Retrospect," Arncr. Iv[ath. Soc.
Bull., 36, 1930, 66-76.
Russell, Bertrand: An Essay on thc Foundalions of Geotrulry (1897), Dover (reprint),
1956.
25. Cayley used the term " descriptive geomctry" for projcctive geometry.
26. Die Entuicklung det Mathcmalik in den lctzten Jaluhurulnlcn (The Developmcnt of Mathc-
matics in the Last Few Centuries), 1869; 2nd ed', 1884.
39
Algebraic Geometry
In these days the angel of topology and the devil of abstract
algebra fight for the soul of each individual mathematical
domain. HERMANN WEYL
l. Background
While non-Euclidean and Riemannian geometry were being created, the
projective geometers were pursuing their theme. As we have seen, the two
areas were linked by the work of Cayley and Klein. After the algebraic
method became widely used in projective geometry the problem of recog-
nizing what properties of geometrical figures are independent of the co-
ordinate representation commanded attention and this prompted the study
of algebraic invariants.
The projective properties of geometrical figures are those that are
invariant under linear transformations of the figures. While working on these
properties the mathematicians occasionally allowed themselves to consider
higher-degree transformations and to seek those properties of curves and
surfaces that are invariant under these latter transformations. The class of
transformations, which soon superseded linear translormations as the
favorite interest, is called birational because these are expressed algebraically
as rational functions of the coordinates and the inverse transformations are
also rational functions of their coordinates. The concentration on birational
transformations undoubtedly resulted from the fact that Riemann had used
them in his work on Abelian integrals and functions, and in fact, as we shall
see, the first big steps in the study of the birational transformation of curves
were guided by what Riemann had done. These two subjects formed the
content ofalgebraic geometry in the latter part ofthe nineteenth century.
The term algebraic geometry is an unfortunate one because originally
it referred to all the work from the time of Fermat and Descartes in which
algebra had been applied to geometry; in the latter part of thc nineteenth
century it was applied to the study of algebraic invariants and birational
transformations. In the twentieth century it relbrs to the last-mentioned
field.
924
TIIE THEORY OF 925
2. The Theorg of Algebraic Inuariants

As we have already noted, the determination of the geometric properties of
figures that are represented and studied through coordinate representation
calls for the discernment of those algebraic expressions which remain
invariant under change of coordinates. Alternatively viewed, the projective
transformation of one figure into another by means of a linear transformation
preserves some properties of the figure. The algebraic invariants represent
these invariant geometrical properties.
The sub.iect of algebraic invariants had previously arisen in number
theory (Chap. 34, sec. 5) and particularly in the study of how binary
quadratic forms
(l) -f : ax2 * 2bxY I cYz
transform when x and y are transformed by the linear transformation T'

namely,
(2) x:ax'*P!', Y:Yx'*69',
where aD - Fy : r. Application of 7 to;fproduces
(3) .f' : a'x'2 * 2b'x'g' + c'Y'2.
In number theory the quantities a, b, c' a, p, y, and 3 are integers and r : l.

However, it is true generally that the discriminant D of;fsatisfies the relation
(4) D' : r2D.
The linear translormations of projective geometry are more general

because the coefficients of the forms and the transformations are not
restricted to integers. The term algebraic invariants is used to distinguish
those arising under these more general linear transformations from the
modular invariants of number theory and, for that matter' from the differen-
tial invariants of Riemannian geometry.
To the history of algebraic invariant theory we need some
discuss
definitions. The zth degree form in one variable
J@): aox" * a$"-r +"'+ a,L
becomes in homogeneous coordinates the binary form

(5) -f(*r, *r) : aoxl * a1x!-Lx2 *'' '* anx\'
In three variables the forms are called ternary; in four variables, quaternary;
etc. The definitions below apply to forms in z variables.
Suppose we subject the binary form to a transformation ?" of the form
(2). Under 7 the form;[(xr, xr) is transformed into the form
F(Xb X; -- AoX! + AtX!-rX2 +.. .+ A"Xg.
926
The coefficients of F will differ from those oflf and the roots of F : 0 will
differ from the roots of;f : 0. Any function .I of the coefficients of;f which
satisfies the relationship
I(Ao, Ab "', Ao) : r'I (ao, at "', 4n)
is called an invariant zo : 0, the invariant is called an absolute

of f. lf
invariant off The degree ofthe invariant is the degree in the coefficients and
the weight is ra. The discriminant of a binary form is an invariant, as (4)
illustrates. In this case the degree is 2 and the weight is 2. The significance of
the discriminant of any polynomial equation ;[(x) : 0 is that its vanishing
is the condition that;f(.r) : 0 have equal roots or, geometrically, that the
locus ofl(x) : 0, which is a series of points, has two coincident points. This
property is clearly independent of the coordinate system.
If two (or more) binary forms
: a*t +'''+
-f,' a^xE
lz: boxi 4 "'* b^xi
are transformed by T into

F1 : AsXl +...+ A^Xt
Fz : BoXi + "'+ BnxL
thcn any function f of the coemcients which satisfies the relationship
(6) I (Ao, ' ' ' , A^, Bo, ' ' ' , Bo) : r'I (ao, ' ' ' , a^, bo, ' ' ' , bn)
is said to be a joint or simultaneous invariant of the two forms. Thus the
linear forms ap1 * bg2 and, a2x1 * bsx2 have as a simultaneous invariant
the resultant a1b, - arb, of the two forms. Geometrically the vanishing of
thc resultant means that the two forms represent the same point (in homo-
geneous coordinates). Two quadratic forms Jt : arx? l2brxrx, * crxl
ahd;f, : a2x2, + 2brxrx, $ csr! possess a simultaneous invariant
De: a{2 - 2brb, + arc,
whose vanishing expresses the fact that J, and f, represent harmonic pairs of
points.
Beyond invariants ofa form or system of forms there are covariants. Any
function C of the coefficients and variables of;fwhich is an invariant under
I except for a power olthe modulus (determinant) of Tis called a covariant
ofl Thus, for binary forms, a covariant satisfies the relation
C (Ao, Ab .. ., Ao, Xr, Xr) -- r'C (ao, ay "'1an5 *17 x2).
The definitions of absolute and simultaneous covariants are analogous to

those for invariants. The degree ofa covariant in the coefficients is called its
degree and the degree in its variables is called its order. Invariants are thus
THE THEORY OF ALGEBRAIC INVARIANTS 927
covariants of order zero. flowever, sometimes the word invariant is used to

mean an invariant in the narrower sense or a covariant.
A covariant oflfrepresents some figure which is not only related toifbut
projectively related. Thus the Jacobian of two quadratic binary forms
f(rr, rr) and {(xr, x2), namely,
taf afl
l0*, 1xrl
lx #l
is a simultaneous covariant of weight I of the two forms. Geometrically, the
Jacobian set equal to zero represents a pair of points which is harmonic to
each ofthe original pairs represented byrfand / and the harmonic ProPerty
is projective.
The Hessian of a binary form introduced by Hesse,l
arf a'f I
a;? 4xr 1xrl

a'J I
dfrl
is a covariant of weight 2. Its geometric meaning is too involved to warrant
space here (Cf. Chap. 35, sec. 5). The concept ol the Hessian and its
covariance applies to any form in n variables.
The work on algebraic invariants was started in l84l by George Boole
(1815-64) whose results 2 were limited. What is more relevant is that Cayley
was attracted to the subject by Boole's work and he interested Sylvester in
the subject. They were joined by George Salmon (1819-1904), who was a
professor of mathematics at Trinity College in Dublin from l8'10 to 1866 and
the., bec"-e a professor of divinity at that institution. These three men did
so much work on invariants that in one of his letters Hermite dubbed them
the invariant trinity.
In l84l Cayley began to publish mathematical articles on the algebraic
side ofprojective geometry. The lB4l paper ofBoole suggested to Cayley the
computation of invariants of nth degree homogeneous functions. He called
the invariants derivatives and then hyperdeterminants; the term invariant is
due to Sylvester.s Cayley, employing ideas of Hesse and Eisenstein on deter-
minants, developed a technique for generating his "derivatives'" Then he
published ten papers on quantics in the Philosophieal Transactions from 1854
l. Jour. fiir Math.,28, 1844, 68-96 : Ges. Abh.' 89-122.

2. Cambridge Mathematical Journal, S, 1841, l-20; and 3, 1842, 106-19.
3. Coll. Math. Palcrs, l,273.
ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY
928
to 1878.a Quantics was the term he adopted for homogeneous polynomials in
2, 3, or more variables. Cayley became so much interested in invariants that
he investigated them for their own sake. He also invented a symbolic
method of treating invariants.
In the particular case of the binary quartic form
1: axl a 4bxlx, * icxlxl + 4dxrxl + exf,
Cayley showed that the Hessian I/ and theJacobian of/and ll are covariants
and that
g2: ac - 4bd + 3c2
and
8s:
l;,:, I
are invariants. To these results Sylvester and Salmon added many more.
Another contributor, Ferdinand Eisenstein, who was more concerned
with the theory of numbers, had already found for the binary cubic form 5
l: *? * Sbxlx, + 3cxrxl + dxl
that the simplest covariant of the second degree is its Hessian 11 and the
simplest invariant is
3b2c2 + 6abcd - 4bsd - 4ac3 - a'd',
which is the determinant of the quadratic Hessian as well as the discriminant
ofl Also the Jacobian of f and FI is another covariant of order three. Then
Siegfried Heinrich Aronhold (l8l9-84), who began work on invariants in
1849, contributed invariants for ternary cubic forms.6
The first major problem that confronted the founders ofinvariant theory
was the discovery of particular invariants. This was the direction of the
work from about 1840 to 1870. As we can see, many such lunctions can be
constructed because some invariants such as the Jacobian and the Hessian
are themselves lorms that have invariants and because some invariants
taken together with the original form give a new system of forms that have
simultaneous invariants. Dozens of major mathematicians including the few
we have already mentioned computed particular invariants.
The continued calculation of invariants led to the major problem of
invariant theory, which was raised alter many special or particular in-
variants were found; this was to find a complete system of invariants' What
4. Coll. Math. Papers, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10.
5. Jour..fiir Math.,27, 1844, 89-106, 319-21.
6. Jour. ftir Math., 55, 1858, 97-l9l ; and 62, 1863, 281-345.
THE THEORY OF ALOEBRATC INVARTANTS 929
this means is to find for a form ofa given number ofvariables and degree the
smallest possible number of rational integral invariants and covariants such
that any other rational integral invariant or covariant could be expressed as a
rational integral function with numerical coefficients of this complete set.
Cayley showed that the invariants and covariants found by Eisenstein for the
binary cubic form and the ones he obtained for the binary quartic form are a
complete system for the respective cases.T This left open the question of a
complete system for other forms.
The existence of a finite complete system or basis for binary fiorms of
any given degree was first established by Paul Gordan (1837-1912), who
devoted most of his life to the subject. His results is that to each binary form
-f(rr, rr) there belongs a finite complete system olrational integral invariants
and covariants. Gordan had the aid of theorems due to Clebsch and the result
is known as the Clebsch-Gordan theorem. The proof is long and difficult.
Gordan also proved s that any finite system of binary forms has a finite com-
plete system of invariants and covariants. Gordan's proofs showed how to
compute the complete systems.
Various limited extensions of Gordan's results were obtained during the
next twenty years. Gordan himself gave the complete system for the ternary
quadratic form,lo for the ternary cubic form,ll and for a system of two and
three ternary quadratics. 12 For the special ternary quartic.ri x, + xfu" + xlx,
Gordan gave a complete system of 54 ground forms.13
In l886 Franz Mertens (1840-1927)14 re-proved Gordan's theorem for
binary systems by an inductive method. He assumed the theorem to be true
for any given set of binary forms and then proved it must still be true when
the degree of one of the forms is increased by one. He did not exhibit ex-
plicitly the finite set ofindependent invariants and covariants but he proved
that it existed. The simplest case, a linear form, was the starting point of the
induction and such a form has only powers ol itself as covariants.
Hilbert, after writing a doctoral thesis in lBB5 on invariants,ls in lBBB16
also re-proved Gordan's theorem that any given system ofbinary forms has a
finite complete system of invariants and covariants. His proof was a modifica-
tion of Mertens's. Both proofs were far simpler than Gordan's. But Hilbert's
proof also did not present a process for finding the complete system.
7. Phil. Trans., 146, 1856, l0l-26: Coll. Math, Papers, 2, 250-75.
8. Jour. far Math.,69, 1868, 323-54.
9. Math. Ann.,2, 187O, 227-BO.
10. R. Clebsch and F. Lindemann, Vorlesungen iiber Geometriz, I' 1876' p. 291.
ll. Math. Aru., I,1869,56-89, 90-128.
12. Clebsch-Lindemann, P. 2BB.
13. Math. Ann., 17,1880, 217-33.
14. Jour. Jih Math., 100, 1887, 223-30.
15. Math. Ann.,30, 1887, l5-29 : Ges. Abh.,2, 102-16.
16. Math. Ann.,33, l8B9'223-26: Ges. Abh.,2' 162-64.
ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY
93O
In 1888 Hilbert astonished the mathematical community by announcing
a totally new approach to the problem of showing that any form of given
degree and given number ofvariables, and any given system of forms in any
given number of variables, have a finite complete system of independent
rational integral invariants and covariants.l? The basic idea of this new
approach was to forget about invariants for the moment and consider the
question: If an infinite system of rational integral expressions in a finite
numbcr ofvariables be given, under what conditions does a finite number ol
these expressions, a basis, exist in terms of which all the others are expressible
as linear combinations with rational integral functions of the same variables
as coefficients ? The answer is, Always. More specifically, Hilbert's basis
theorem, which precedes the result on invariants, goes as follows: By an
algebraic form we understand a rational integral homogeneous function in n
variablcs with coefficients in some definite domain of rationality (field).
Given a collection of infnitely many forms of any degrees in the z variables,
then there is a finite number (a basis) Fr,Fr,...,F such thatanyformFof
the collection can be written as
F : Aft * Afz +...+ A^F^
where r4r, Ar,. . ., in the z variables (not necessarily in
z{,. are suitable forms
thc infinite system) with coefficients in the same domain as the coefficients of
the infinite system.
In the application of this theorem to invariants and covariants, Hilbert's
result states that for any form or system of forms there is a finite number of
rational integral invariants and covariants by means of which every other
rational integral invariant or covariant can be expressed as a linear com-
bination of the ones in the finite set. This finite collection of invariants and
covariants is the complete invariant system.
Hilbert's existence proof was so much simpler than Gordan's laborious
calculation of a basis that Gordan could not help exclaiming, " This is not
mathematics; it is theology." However, he reconsidered the matter and said
later, "I have convinced myself that theology also has its advantages'" In
fact hc himself simplified Hilbert's existence proof.l8
In the 1880s and '90s the theory of invariants was seen to have unified
many areas of mathematics. This theory was the " modern algebra" of the
period. Sylvester said in 1864:10 "As all roads lead to Rome so I find in my
orn r, at least that all algebraic inquiries, sooner or later, end at the
Capitol""""of modern algebra over whose shining portal is inscribed the Theory
of Invariants." Soon the theory became an end in itself, independent of its
17 . Math. Aru.,36,1890, 47!534 : Gcs. Abh.,2, 199-257 and in succceding papers until
'
1893.
18. Nuhrichha Konig. Gcs. det tilks. z/ Gafi., 1899,24M2'
19. Phil. Truns., 154, 1864, 579-666 :
Coll. Math. Polrs, 2, 37G-*79, p' 380'
THE THEORY OT ALGEBRAIC INVARIANTS 93r
origins in number theory and projective geometry. The workers in algebraic

invariants persisted in proving every kind of algebraic identity whether or
not it had geometrical significance. Maxwell, when a student at Cambridge,
said that some of the men there saw the whole universe in terms of quintics
and quantics.
On the other hand the physicists of the late nineteenth century took no
notice of the subject. Indeed Tait once remarked of Cayley, "Is it not a
shame that such an outstanding man puts his abilities to such entirely
useless questions ? " Nevertheless the subject did make its impact on physics,
indirectly and directly, largely through the work in differential invariants.
Despite the enormous enthusiasm for invariant theory in the second half
of the nineteenth century, the subject as conceived and pursued during that
period lost its attraction. Mathematicians say Hilbert killed invariant theory
because he had disposed of all the problems. Hilbert did write to Minkowski
in 1893 that he would no longer work in the subject, and said in a paper of
lB93 that the most important general goals of the theory were attained.
However, this was far from the case. Hilbert's theorem did not show how to
compute invariants for any given form or system of forms and so could not
provide a single significant invariant. The search for specific invariants
having geometrical or physical significance was still important. Even the
calculation of a basis for forms of a given degree and number of variables
might prove valuable.
What "killed" invariant theory in the nineteenth-century sense of the
subject is the usual collection olfactors that killed many other activities that
were over-enthusiastically pursued. Mathematicians follow leaders. Hilbert's
pronouncement, and the fact that he himself abandoned the subject, exerted
great influence on others. Also, the calculation of significant specific in-
variants had become more difficult after the more readily attainable results
were achieved.
The computation of algebraic invariants did not end with Hilbert's work.
Emmy Noether (lBB2-1935), a student of Gordan, did a doctoral thesis in
1 907 " On Complete Systems of f nvariants for Ternary Biquadratic Forms."20
She also gave a complete system ofcovariant forms for a ternary quartic, 331
in all. In 1910 she extended Gordan's result to n variables.2l
The subsequent history ofalgebraic invariant theory belongs to modern
abstract algebra. The methodology of Hilbert brought to the fore the ab-
stract theory of modules, rings, hnd fields. In this language Hilbert proved
that every modular system (an ideal in the class of polynomials in n variables)
has a basis consisting of a finite number of polynomials, or every ideal in a
polynomial domain of z variables possesses a finite basis provided that in the
domain of the coefficients of the polynomials every ideal has a finite basis.
20. Jour, fir Math., 134, 1908, 23-90.
21. Jour.fnr Math' 139, l9l I, I 18-54.
g32 ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY
From l9l I to l9l9 Emmy Noether produced many papers on finite bases
for various cases using Hilbert's technique and her own. In the subsequent
twentieth-century development the abstract algebraic.viewpoint dominated'
As Eduard Study complained in his text on invariant theory' there was lack
of concern for specific problems and only abstract methods were pursued'
3. Tlu Concept of Birational Transformati.ons

We saw in Chapter 35 that, especially during the third and fourth decades of
the nineteenth century, the work in projective Seometry turned to higher-
degree curves. Flowever, before this work had gone very far there was a
change in the nature of the study. The projective viewpoint means linear
transformations in homogeneous coordinates. Gradually transformations of
the second and higher degrees came into play and the emphasis turned to
birational transformations. Such a transformation, for the case of two non-
homogeneous coordinates, is of the form
x' : 6@,s), !' : {('c,Y)

where { and f are rational functions in * and y and moreover r and y can
be expressed as rational functions of*' and y'. In homogeneous coordinates
x1, x2, and, rs the transficrmations are of the form
xi : Flxl., xz, xs), i : 1,2,3

and the inverse is
xt : Glxl,xL,xL), i : 1,2,3,
where F1 and G, are homogeneous polynomials of degree z in their respective
variables. The correspondence is one-to-one excePt that each of a finite
number of points may correspond to a curve.
As an illustration of a birational transformation we have inversion with
respect to a circle. Geometrically this transformation (Fig. 39'1) is from M
to M' or M' to M by means of the defining equation
oM.oM' : 12,
where r is the radius ol the circle. Algebraically if we set up a coordinate

system at O the Pythagorean theorem leads to
, r2x ,: r2y
(7)
x" +y' '
q
x'+g'
-;----:------6.
whete M is (r,y) and M'is (x',y'). Under this transformation circles trans-
form into circles or straight lines and conversely. Inversion is a transforma-
tion that carries the entire plane into itselfand such birational transformations
THE CONCEPT OF BIRATIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS 933
Figure 39.
are called Cremona transformations. Another example of a Cremona trans-

formation in three (homogeneous) variables is the quadratic transformation
(8) x| : xzxa, xL: x,*b xs: )tft2
whose inverse is
\ : xLxL, xz: xLx\, xs : xixl.

The term birational transformation is also used in a more general
sense, namely, wherein the transformation from the points of one curve into
those of another is birational but the transformation need not be birational
in the entire plane. Thus (in nonhomogeneous coordinates) the transforma-
tion
(e) X: x2, Y:!
is not one-to-one in the entire plane but does take any curve C to the right of
the y-axis into another in a one-to-one correspondence.
The inversion transformation was the first of the birational trans-
formations to appear. It was used in limited situations by Poncelet in his
Traiti of lB22 (fl370) and then by Phicker, Steiner, Qpetelet, and Ludwig
fmmanuel Magnus (1790-186l). It was studied extensively by Mtibiuss2
and its use in physics was recognized by Lord Kelvin,23 and by Liouville,2a
who called it the transformation by reciprocal radii.
In lB54 Luigi Cremona (183G-1903), who served as a professor of
mathematics at several Italian universities, introduced the general birational
translormation (of the entire plane into itself) and wrote important papers on
it.25 Max Noether (1844-1921), the father of Emmy Noether, then proved
the fundamental result26 thaf a plane Cremona transformation can be built
22. Theorie der Kreisoerwdndschqft (Theory of Inversion), Abh. Knnig. Suh, Ges. dcr Wiss.,2
1855, 529-65 :Werke,2, 243-3+5.
23. Jour. de Math., 10, 1845, 36,1-67.
24. Jour. de Math., 12, 1847, 26190.
25. Gior. di Mat., l,
1863, 305-ll :
Obue, 1,5,t-61; and 3, 1865, 269-40, 363-76 =
Opere, 2, 193-218.
26. Math. Ann., 3, 1871, 165-227 , p. 167 in particular.
g34 ALGEBRATC GEOMETRY
up from a sequence of quadratic and linear transformations. Jacob Rosanes

(1542-1922) found this result independently2? and also proved that all
one-to-one algebraic transformations of the plane must be Cremona trans-
formations. The proofs of Noether and Rosanes were completed by Guido
Castelnuovo (I 865-1 952).'z8
4. Ttu Function-Tluoretic Ap|roach to Algebraic Geometry

Though the nature of the birational transfiormation was clear, the develop-
ment ofthe subject ofalgebraic geometry as the study ofinvariants under such
transformations was, at least in the nineteenth century, unsatisfactory'
Several approaches were used; the results were disconnected and frag-
mentary; most Proofs were incomplete; and very few major theorems were
obtained. The variety ofapproaches has resulted in marked differences in the
languages used. The goals ofthe subject were also vague. Though invariance
under birational transformations has been the leading theme, the subject
covers the search for properties of curves, surfaces, and higher-dimensional
structures. In view of these factors there are not many central results' We
shall give a few samples of what was done.
The first of the approaches was made by Clebsch. (Rudolf Friedrich)
Alfred Clebsch (1833-72) studied under Hesse in Ktinigsberg from lB50 to
1854. In his early work he was interested in mathematical physics and from
l85B to 1863 was professor of theoretical mechanics at Karlsruhe and then
professor of mathematics at Giessin and Gottingen. He worked on problems
ieft by Jacobi in the calculus of variations and the theory of differential
eqnations. In l862 he published the khrbuth dtr Elasticitdt. However, his chief
work was in algebraic invariants and algebraic geometry.
Clebsch had worked on the projective properties of curves and surfaces
of third and fourth degrees uP to about 1860. He met Paul Gordan in 1863
and learned about Riemann's work in complex function theory' Clebsch
then brought this theory to bear on the theory of curves.2e This approach
is called transcendental. Though Clebsch made the connection between
complex functions and algebraic curves, he admitted in a letter to Gustav
Roch that he could not understand Riemann's work on Abelian functions
t
nor Roch's contributions in his dissertation.
Clebsch reinterpreted the complex function theory in the following
manner: The functionlf @, z) :0, wherein z and w are complex variables'
calls geometrically for a Riemann surface for z and a plane or a Portion of a
plane for ro or, if one prefers, for a Riemann surface to each point of which a
pair of values of z and zo is attached. By considering only the real parts of z
2?. Jour. far Math., 73, 1871, 97-l 10.
28. Atti Accad. Torito,36, 1901, 861-74.
29. Jour. fiir Math., 63, 186,1, 189-243.
THE FUNCTION.THEORETIC APPROACII 93s
(*o,.ro)
Figure 39.2 C=o
and ra the equationf (w, z) 7 0 represents a curve in the real Cartesian plane.
z and w may still have complex values satisfyin9 -f @, z) : 0 but these are
not plotted. This view of real curves with complex points was already
familiar from the work in projective geometry. To the theory of birational
transformations of the surflace corresponds a theory of birational transforma-
tions of the plane curve. Under the reinterpretation just described the branch
points of the Riemann surface correspond to those points of the curve where
a Iine x : const. meets the curve in two or more consecutive points, that is,
is either tangent to the curve or passes through a cusp. A double point ofthe
curve corresponds to a point on the surface where two sheets just touch
without any further connection. Higher multiple points on curves also
correspond to other peculiarities of Riemann surfaces.
In the subsequent account we shall utilize the following definitions
(Cf. Chap. 23, sec. 3): A multiple point (singular point) P of order t > I of
an zth degree plane curve is a point such that a generic line through P cuts
the curve in n - k points. The multiple point is ordinary if the i tangents at
P are distinct. fn counting intersections ofan nth degree and an zth degree
curve one must take into account the multiplicity of the multiple points on
each curve. If it is i on the curve C" and k on C' and if the tangents at P of
C" are distinct from those of C', then the point of intersection has multi-
plicity it,t. A curve C' is said to be adjoint to a curve C when the multiple
points of C are ordinary or cusps and if C' has a point of multiplicity of
order t - I at every multiple point ofC of order t.
Clebschso first restated Abel's theorem (Chap. 27, sec. 7) on integrals
of the first kind in terms of curves. Abel considered a fixed rational function
.R(x, y) where x and y are related by any algebraic curve;f(r, y) : 0, so that
y is a function of x. Suppose.(Fig. 39.2);t: 0 is cut by another algebraic
curve
4(*,9, or, a2, - . ., a*) : O,
where the a,'s are the coefficients in / : 6. Let the intersections of { : 6

with;t:0 be (xr,yt), (*r,!r),"',(x^,!^).(The number m of these is the
30. Jour. fiir Math., 63, 1864, 189-243.
ALGEBRATC GEOMETRY
936
product of the degrees off and {.) Given a point (*o,yo) on;t: g, where yo
belongs to one branch off : g, then we can consider the sum
1 : > l"'u,
*o'vo
R1*,y1 d*.
f,,J
The upper limits .r,, y, all lie on d : 0 and the integral -I is a function of the
upper limits. Then there is a characteristic number p of these limits which
have to be algebraic functions of the others. This number l depends only on
1[ Moreover. .f can be expressed as the sum of these I integrals and rational
and logarithmic functions of the x,,y,, i : 1,2, '. ', rn. Further, if the curve
{ : 0 is varied by varying the parameters aL to ab then the x, will also vary
and l becomes a function of the a, through the x,. The function lof the a, will
be rational in the ai or at worst involve logarithmic functions of the a,.
Clebsch also carried over to curves Riemann's concept of Abelian
integrals on Riemann surfaces, that is, integrals of the formJ 8(x,y) dx, wherc
g is a rational function andf (x, y) : 0' To illustrate the integrals ofthe first
kind consider a plane fourth degree curve Ca without double points. Here
! : 3 and, there are the three everywhere finite integrals
fdx
,r:)f"'I xdx "r:l#' u,: )7,
What applies to the C4 carries over to arbitrary algebraic curves
J@,y) :0 of the zth order. In place of the three everywhere finite integrals
there are now 1D such integrals, (where 1 is the genus ofl: 0). Each has 2p
periodicity modules (Chap. 27, sec. B). The integrals are of the form
IW**
where / is a polynomial (an adjoint) of precisely the degree a - 3 which
vanishes at the double points and cusps of;[ : Q.
Clebsch's next contributionsl was to introduce the notion of genus as a
concept for classi$ing curves. If the curve has d double points then the genus
p: (l l2)(n - l)(, - 2) - d. Previously there was the notion of the
deficiency of a curve (Chap. 23, sec. 3), that is, the maximum possible
number of double points a curve of flegree n could possess, namely,
(n - l) (n - 2)/2, minus the number it actually does possess. Clebsch
shov"'ed 32 that for curves with only ordinary multiple points (the tangents
are all distinct) the genus is the same as the deficiency and the genus is an
invariant under birational transformation of the entire plane into itself.33
31. Jour. f'nr Math., 64, 1865, 43-65.
32. Jour. fiir Math,, 64, 1865, 98-100.
33. If the multiple (singular) points are of order I then the genus p of a curve C is
(z - l)(z - 2)12 - (l 12) ) rr(r, - l), where the summation extends over all multiple
points. The genus is a more refined concept.
THE UNIFORMIZATION PROBLEM 937
Clebsch's notion of genus is related to Riemann's connectivity of a Riemann

surface. The Riemann surface corresponding to a curve of genus t has con-
nectivity 2p + 1.
The notion ofgenus can be used to establish significant theorems about
curves. Jacob Liiroth (18,K-1910) showed 3a that a curve of genus 0 can be
birationally transformed into a straight line. When the genus is l, Clebsch
showed that a curve can be birationally transformed into a third degree
curve.
In addition to classifying curves by genus, Clebsch, following Riemann,
introduced classes within each genus. Riemann had considered 3s the
birational transformation of his surllaces. Thus ifl(zo, z) : 0 is the equation
of the surface and if
wr : Rt(w, z), ar : Rz(u, z)
are rational functions and if the inverse transformation is rational then
-f (., ,) can be transformed
to F (wr, z) : O. Two algebraic equations
F(w, z): 0 (or their surfaces) can be transformed birationally into one
another only if both have the samep value. (The number of sheets need not
be preserved.) For Riemann no further proof was needed. It was guaranteed
by the intuition.
Riemann (in the lB57 paper) regarded all equations (or the surfaces)
which are birationally transformable into each other as belonging to the
same class. They have the same genusp. However, there are different classes
with the same I value (because the branch-points may differ). The most
general class of genus p is characterized by 3p - 3 (complex) constants
(coefficients in the equation) wheny' > l, by one constant when I : I and
by zero constants whenp : 0. In the case ofelliptic functionsp : I and there
is one constant. The trigonometric functions, for which p : 0, do not have
any arbitrary constant. The number of constants was called by Riemann
the class modulus. The constants are invariant under birational transforma-
tion. Clebsch likewise put all those curves which are derivable from a given
one by a one-to-one birational transformation into one class. Those of one
class necessarily have the same genus but there may be different classes with
the same genus.
5. The Unformization ProbleJn

Clebsch then turned his attention to what is called the uniformization
problem for curves. Let us note first just what this problem amounts to.
Given the equation
(t 0) u2+22:1
34. Math. Ann.,9, 1876, 163-65.
35. Jour. fiir Math.,54, 1857, I l5-55 -- Werk.e,2nd ed., 88-142.
ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY
938
wc can rePr6ent it in the Parametric form
(ll) z : sin r, ro : cos
'
or in the parametric form
2t l-t8
(12) z:G-tz' ':TT-(-
Thus even though (10) defines ra as a multiple-valued function of z, we can
reprcsent z arrd,i as single-valued or uniform functions of l' The parametric
( I I ) or (12) are said to uniformize the algebraic equation ( l0) '
{,rations
-
For an equation;f(ar, z) : 0 ofgenus 0 Clebsch showed that each of
38
the variablcs can be e:rpressed as a rational function of a single parameter.

Thcse rational functions are uniformizing functions' When ;f : 0 is inter-
preted as a curve it is then called unicursal. conversely if the variables za
ind z ofJ: 0 are rationally exPressible in terms ofan arbitrary parameter
then./: 0 is of genus 0.
When p : I then Clebsch showed in the same yeareT that u and z can
be expressei as rational functions bf the parameters f and 1 where 42 is a
polynomial of either the third or fourth degree in {'Thenf(u, z) : 0 or the
corresponding curve is called bicursal, a term introduced by Cayley'o8 It
is also called elliptic because the equation (duldz)z : 12 leads to elliptic
integrals, we can as well say that ar and z are expressible as single-valued
douily periodic functions of a single parameter c or as rational functions of
p(c) whire p(c) is weierstrass,s function. clebsch's result on the uniformiza-
Lon of crrrve" of genus I by means of elliptic functions of a parameter made
it possiblc to estatlish for such curves remarkable properties about points of
iniection, osculatory conics, tangents from a point to a curve, and other
rcaults, many of which had been demonstrated earlier but with great
difficulty.
For cquations;f (w, z) :0 of genus 2, Alexander von Brill (1842-1935)
showed ro irat the variables ar and z are expressible as rational functions
of
f- and z where 42 is now a polynomial of the fifth or sixth degree in f'
Thus frt Jtiot t of genus 0, l, and 2 can be uniformized' For function
l@, .) : 0 of genus greater than 2 the thought was to employ more general
-functions,
,t"-ily automorphic functions. In 1882 Kleinao gave a general
uniformization theorem but the proof was not comPlete' In 1883 Poincar6
announced {1 his general uniformization theorem but he too had no complete
36. Jour. f*r Math., &, 1865, 4H5.

37. Jour. ftu Ma,h.,64, 1865,210-70.
38. Proc. Ian. Math. Soc., 4, $71-73, 347-52 = Coll' Math' Paias, 8, l8l-87 '
39. Jow.fnr Mart.,65, 1866, 26H3.
4O. Math. Aan.,2l, 1883, l4l-218 :
Gcs. ma,h. Abh',3, 63lu-.7l0'
41. Butl. Soe. Math. dc Frorcc, ll,
1883, ll2-25 = CEwrcs,4, 5749'
THE ALGEBRATC-GEOMETRIC APPROACH 939
proof. Both Klein and Poincar6 continued to work hard to prove this
theorem but no decisive result was obtained for twenty-five years. In 1907
Poincar€a2 and Paul Koebe (1882-1945)a3 independently gave a proof of
this uniformization theorem. Koebe then extended the result in many
directions. With the theorem on uniformization now rigorously established
an improved treatment of algebraic functions and their integrals has become
possible.
6. The Algebrai.c-Geometric ApProach

A new direction of work in algebraic geometry begins with the collaboration
of Clebsch and Gordan during the years 1865-70. Clebsch was not satisfied
merely to show the significance of Riemann's work for curves. He s'ought now
to establish the theory of Abelian integrals on the basis of the algebraic
theory ol curves. In 1865 hc and Gordan joined forces in this work and
produced their Tluoric der Abclschen Funktionen (1866). One must aPPreciate
that at this time Weierstrass's more rigorous theory of Abelian integrals was
not known and Riemann's foundation-his proof of existence based on
Dirichlet's principle-was not only strange but not well established. Also at
this time there was considerable enthusiasm for the theory of invariants of
algebraic forms (or curves) and for projective methods as the first stage, so to
speak, of the treatment of birational transformations,
Although the work of Clebsch and Gordan was a contribution to
algebraic geometry, it did not establish a purely algebraic theory of Riemann's
theory of Abelian integrals. They did use algebraic and geometric methods
as opposed to Riemann's function-theoretic methods but they also used
basic results of function theory and the function-theoretic methods of Weier-
strass. In addition they took some results about rational functions and the
intersection point theorem as given. Their contribution amounted to starting
from some function-theoretic results and, using algebraic methods, obtaining
new results previously established by function-theoretic methods. Rational
transformations were the essence of the algebraic method.
They gave the first algebraic prooffor the invariance ofthe genusl ofan
algebraic curve under rational trantformations, using as a definition ofp the
degree and number ofsingularities ofJ : g. Then, using the fact thatp is the
number oflinearly independent integrals ofthe first kind on;[(x1, x2, xr) : g
and that these integrals are everywhere finite, they showed that the trans-
formation L^.
P4:Sllb!s,!e), i:1,2,3,
42. Acta Math.,3l, 1908, 143 : @uwes,4, 70-139.
43. Math. Ann.,67, 1909, 145-224.
ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY
940
transforms an integral ofthe first kind into an integral ofthe first kind so that
y' is invariant. They also gave new proofs of Abel's theorem (by using
function-theoretic ideas and methods) .
Their work was not rigorous' In particular they, too' in the Pliicker
tradition counted arbitrary constants to determine the number of inter-
section points of a C^ with a C". Special kinds of double points were not
investigited. The significance of the Clebsch-Gordan work for the theory of
algebraic functions was to express clearly in algebraic form such results as
Abel's theorem and to use it in the study of Abelian integrals' They put the
algebraic part of the theory of Abelianintegrals and functions more into the
foreground and in particular establisbLd the theory of transformations on its
own foundations.
Clebsch and Gordan had raised many problems and left many gaps' The
problems lay in the direction of new algebraic investigations for a purely
algebraic theory of algebraic functions. The work on the algebraic approach
was continued by Alexander von Brill and Max Noether from lB71 on; their
key paper was published in lB74.aa Brill and Noether based their theory on a
celebrated residual theorem (Rcstsatz) which in their hands took the place
of Abel's theorem. They also gave an algebraic proof of the Riemann-Roch
theorem on the number of constants which appear in algebraic functions
F(w, z) which become infinite nowhere except in rll prescribed points of
a Co. According to this theorem the most general algebraic function which
fulElls this condition has the form
F : CrFr + CzFs +... * CuFu * Cu*,
where
P:n-?*r,
t is the number of linearly independent functions { (of degree z - 3) which
vanish in the z prescribed points, andp is the genus of the C,. Thus if the C"
is a Cl without double points, thenp : 3 and the {'s are straight lines' For
this case when
m:l,thent :2 and,p.: I -3 +2 :0;
m:2,thent: l, andp:2 -3 + l:0;
m:3,then z: I or0andP: I or 0.
When p : 0 there is no algebraic function which becomes infinite in the
given points. When rn : 3, there is one and only one such function provided
the three given points be on a straight line. If the three points do lie on a
line z : 0, this line cuts the Ca in a fourth point. We choose a line z : 0
through this point and then Ft : ula.
,H. ,,Uber die algebraischen Funktionen und ihre Anwendung in der Geometrie," Math.
Am., 7, 187*,269-310'
THE ALCEBRAIC-GEOMETRIC APPROACH 94r
This work replaces Riemann's determination of the most general

algebraic function having given points at which it becomes infinite. Also the
Brill-Noether result transcends the projective viewpoint in that it deals with
the geometry of points on the curve C, given by -f : O, whose mutual
relations are not altered by a one-to-one birational transformation. Thus for
the first time the theorems on points of intersection of curves were established
algebraically. The counting of constants as a method was dispensed with'
The work in algebraic geometry continued with the detailed investiga-
tion of algebraic space curves by Noethera6 and Halphen.ao Any space
curve C can be projected birationally into a plane curve C1. All such Ct
coming from C have the same genus. The genus of C is therefore defined to be
that of any such C, and the genus of C is invariant under birational trans-
formation of the space.
The topic which has received the greatest attention over the years is the
study of singularities of plane algebraic curves. IJp to l87l, the theory of
algebraic functions considered from the algebraic viewpoint had limited
itself to curves which had distinct or separated double points and at worst
only cusps (Riiekkehrpunkte). Curves with more complicated singularities were
believed to be treatable as limiting cases of curves with double points. But
the actual limiting procedure was vague and lacked rigor and unity. The
culmination of the work on singularities is two famous transformation
theorems, The first states that every plane irreducible algebraic curve can be
transformed by a Cremona transformation to one having no singular points
other than multiple points with distinct tangents. The second asserts that by
a transformation birational only on the curve every plane irreducible
algebraic curve can be transformed into another having only double points
with distinct tangents. The reduction of curves to these simpler forms
facilitates the application of many of the methodologies of algebraic
geometry.
Ilowever, the numerous proofs of these theorems, especially the second
one, have been incomplete or at least criticized by mathematicians (other
than the author). There really are two cases of the second theorem, real
curves in the projective plane ind curves in the complex function theory
sense where x and y each run over a complex plane. NoetheraT in l87l used
a sequence of quadratic transforurations which are one-to-one in the entire
plane to prove the first theorem. He is generally credited with the proof but
actually he merely indicated a proof which was perfected and modified by
many writers.a8 Kronecker, using analysis and algebra, developed a method
for proving the second theorem. He communicated this method verbally to
45. Jour. fiir Math., 93, 1882, 271-318.
:
46. Jour. de I'Ecole Poly., Cahiet 52, 1882, l-200 CEa)res, 3,261455.
47. Nachrichten Kdnig. Gcs. der Wiss. zu Gail.' 1871,267-78.
48. See also Noether, Math. Am.,9, 1876, 166-82; and 23, 1884, 3ll-58.
942
Riemann and Weierstrass in 1858, Iectured on it from lB70 on and published
it in l88l.{s The method used rational transformations, which with the aid of
the cquation of the given plane curve are one-to-one, and transformed the
singular case into the " regular onel" that is, the singular points become just
double points with distinct tangents. The result, however, was not stated by
Kronecker and is only implicit in his work.
This second theorem to the eflect that all multiple points can be
reduced to double points by birational transformations on the curve was first
explicitly stated and proved by Halphen in l884.so Many other proofs have
been given but none is universally accepted.
7. Tlu Arithmetic Approafi

In addition to the transcendental approach and the algebraic-geometric
approach there is what is called the arithmetic approach to algebraic
curves, which is, however, in concept at least, purely algebraic. This approach
is rcally a group of thmries which differ greatly in detail but which have in
common the construction and analysis of the integrands of the three kinds of
Abelian integrals. This approach was developed by Kronecker in his lec-
tures,El by Weierstrass in his lectures of 1875-76, and by Dedekind and
Heinrich Weber in a joint paper.62 The approach is fully presented in the
text by Kurt Hensel and Georg Landsbergt Tluorie der algebraisclun Funktionen
cbur Variabcln (19O2).
The central idea of this approach comes from the work on algebraic
numbers by Kronecker and Dedekind and utilizes an analogy between the
algebraic integers of an algebraic number field and the algebraic functions
on the Riemann surface of a complex function. In the theory of algebraic
numbers one starts with an irreducible polynomial equation jf(.r) : 0 with
integral coefficients. The analogue for algebraic geometry is an irreducible
polynomial equation jf(f, z) : 0 whose coefficients of the powers of ( are
polynomials in z (with, say, real coefficients). In number theory one then
considers the field.R(r) generated by the coefficients of;t(.r) : 0 and one of
its roots. In the geometry one considers the field of all .R((, z) which are
algebraic and one-valued on the Riemann surface. One then considers in
the number theory the integral algebraic numbers. To these there correspond
thc algebraic functions G((, z) which are entire, that is, become infinite only
at z : @. The decomposition of the algebraic integers into real prime factors
49. Jour. Jar Math.,9l,l88l, 301-34 = Werke,2, 193-236.

50, Reproduced in an appendix to a French edition (1884) of G. Salmon's Higfur Planz
Curucs and in E. Picard's Traili d'analyse, 2, 1893, 364 tr : (Ewres, 4, l-93.
51. Jour. Jnr Marh.,9l,l88l, 301-34 and 92, 1882, l-122 : Werkc,2, 193-387.
52. " Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen einer Ver?inderlichen," Jour. far Math., 92,
1882, l8l-290 : Dcdekind's We*c, 1, 23&-350.
THE ALGEBRAIC CEOMETRY OF SURTACES 943
and units respectively corresPonds to the decomPosition of the G((, z) into

factors such that each vanishes at one point only ofthe Riemann surface and
factors that vanish nowhere, respectively. Where Dedekind introduced ideals
in the number theory to discuss divisibility, in the geometric analogue one
replaces a factor ol a G(1, z) which vanishes at one point of the Riemann
sr.f."e by the collection of all functions of the field of R({, z) which vanish
at that point. Dedekind and weber used this arithmetic method to treat the
field ol algebraic functions and they obtained the classic results.
Hilbert 5s continued. what is essentially the algebraic or arithmetic
approach to algebraic geometry of Dedekind and Kronecker' One principal
theorem, Hilbert's Nullstellcnsatz, states that every algebraic structure
(figure) of arbitrary extent in a sPace of arbitrarily many homogeneous
variables xt, . , . , *tt can always be represented by a finite number of homo-
geneous equations
Ft : O,Fz: 0, "',f, : 0
so that the equation ofany other structure containing the original one can be
represented by
M.FL + ...+ MpFt, : o,
where the M's are arbitrary homogeneous integral forms whose degree must
be so chosen that the left side of the equation is itself homogeneous'
Hilbert following Dedekind called the collection of the MrF, a module
(the term is now ideal and module now is something more general). One can
state Hilbert's result thus: Every algebraic structure of .Rn determines the
vanishing of a finite module.
B- The Algebraic Geometry of Surfaus

Almost from the beginning of work in the algebraic geometry of curves, the
theory of surfaces was also investigated. Here too the direction of the worl
turned to invariants under linear and birational transformations, Like the
equratior J@, !) : 0, the polynomial equation ;[(x, y , z) : O has a double
interpretation. lf xrg, and z take on real values then the equation represents
a twl-dimensional surface in three-dimensional space. If, however, these
variables take on complex values, then the equation rePresents a four-
dimensional manifold in a six-dimensional space.
The approach to the algebraic geometry of surfaces Paralleled that for
6a
curves. Clebsch employed function-theoretic methods and introduced
53. "Uber die Theorie der algebraischen Formen," Mart. Aan.,36, 1890, 47t-53+ =
Gcs. Abh.,2, 199-257 .
54. ComP. Rtnl., 67, 1868, t238-39.
944
double integrals which play the role of Abelian integrals in the theory of
curves. Clebsch noted that flor an algebraic surface;[(.t, y , z) : 0 of degree
zr with isolated multiple points and ordinary multiple lines, certain surfaces
of degree z - 4 ought to play the role which the adjoint curves of degree
m - 3 play with respect to a curve of degree zz. Given a rational function
R(x,g, z) where r,y, and. z are related by;[(r,y, z) :0, if one seeks the
double integrals
I I *o''' z) dx dv'
which always remain finite when the integrals extend over a two-dimensional
region of the four-dimensional surface, one finds that they are of the form
IIwfz**
where Q is a polynomial of degree n - 4.Q : 0 is an adjoint surface which
passes through the multiple lines of;f : 0 and has a multiple line of order
k - I at least in every multiple line ofrf of order,t and has a multiple point
of order q - 2 at least in every isolated multiple point of;fof order 4. Such
an integral is called a double integral ofthe first kind. The number oflinearly
independent integrals of this class, which is the number of essential con-
stants in Q@,y, ,), is called the geometrical genus 1, of f : g. If the surface
has no multiple lines of points
,o:@-r)(*:2)(*-s).
Max Noetherss and Hieronymus G. Zeuthen (1839-1920) 58 proved that p,
is an invariant under birational transformations of the surface (not of the
whole space).
Up to this point the analogy with the theory of curves is good. The
double integrals ofthe first kind are analogous to the Abelian integrals ofthe
first kind. But now a first diflerence becomes manifest. It is necessary to
calculate the number of essential constants in the polynomials Q of degree
z - 4 which behave at multiple points of the surface in such a manner that
the integral remains finite. But one can find by a precise formula the number
of conditions thus involved only for a polynomial of sufficiently large degree
.ly'. If one puts into this formula N : m - 4, one might find a number
diflerent from po. CayleysT called this new number the numerical (arith-
metic) genusl, of the surface. The most general case is where pn : pr. When
55. Math. Ann., 2, 1870,293-316.
56. Moth. Ann., 4, l87l,2l-49.
57. Phil. Tratts., 159, 1869, 201-29 : Coll. Math. Papers, 6, 329-58; and Math. Ann', 3,
l87l, 526-29 : Coll. Math. Paper, 8, 394-97.
THE ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY OF SURFACES 945
the equality does not hold one hasln < p, and the surface is called irregular;
otherwise it is called regular. Then Zeuthenss and Noetherss established the
invariance of the number 1" when it is not equal to pr.
Picardso developed a theory of double integrals of the second kind.
These are the integrals which become infinite in the manner of
(l 3)
IIW*#)*r
where U and V are rational functions ol x,g, and z andf(x,9, z) : 0. The
number of different integrals of the second kind, different in the sense that
no linear combination of these integrals reduces to the form (13), is finite;
this is a birational invariant ofthe surfacelf: 0. But it is not true here, as in
the case ofcurves, that the number ofdistinct Abelian integrals olthe second
kind is 2p. This new invariant of algebraic surfaces does not appear to be tied
to the numerical or the geometrical genus.
Far less has been accomplished for the theory of surfaces than for curves.
One reason is that the possible singularities of surfaces are much more com-
plicated. There is the theorem ofPicard and Georges Simart proven by Beppo
Levi (1875-1928) s1 that any (real) algebraic surface can be birationally
transformed into a surface free of singularities which must, however, be in a
space of five dimensions. But this theorem does not Prove to be too helpful.
In the case ofcurves the single invariant number, the genusy', is capable
of definition in terms of the characteristics of the curve or the connectivity
of the Riemann surface. In the case ofl(x, y, z) : 0 the number of character-
izing arithmetical birational invariants is unknown.s2 We shall not attemPt
to describe further the few limited results for the algebraic geometry of
surfaces.
The subject of algebraic geometry now embraces the study of higher-
dimensional figures (manifolds or varieties) defined by one or more algebraic
equations. Beyond generalization in this direction, another type, namely, the
use of more general coefficients in the defining equations, has also been
undertaken. These coefficients can be members of an abstract ring or field
and the methods of abstract algebra are applied. The several methods of
pursuing algebraic geometry as well as the abstract algebraic formulation
introduced in the twentieth century have led to sharp differences in language
and methods ofapproach so that one class ofworkers finds it very difficult to
understand another. The emphasis in this century has been on the abstract
algebraic approach. It does seem to offer sharp formulations of theorems and
58. Math. Ann., 4, 1871,2149.

59. Math. Ann.,8, 1875,495-533.
60. Jour. de Math., (5), 5, 1899, 5-54, and later PaPers.
61. Annali di Mat., (2),26, 1897, 219-53.
62. The manifolds involved cannot be characterized even topologically.
946
proofs thereby settling much'controversy about the meaning and correctness

of tlle older results. However, much of the work seems to have far more
bearing on algebra than on geometry.
Bibliograplry
Bater, H. F.: "On Some Recent Advances in the Theory of Algebraic Surfaces,"
Proc. Ian. Math. Soc., (2), 12, l9l2-13, l-40.
Berzolari, L.: "Allgemeine Theorie der hiiheren ebenen algebraischen Kurven,"
hqk. der Math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner, 1903-15, III C4, 313-455.
"Algebraische Transformationen und Korrespondenzen," Ercyk. der
Math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner, 1903-15, III, 2, 2nd hzlf B, 1781-2218. Useful
for results on higher-dimensional figures.
Bliss, G. A. : " The Reduction of Singularities of Plane Curves by Birational
Transformations," Amcr. Math. Soc. Bull.,29, 1923, 16l-83.
Brill, 4., and M. Noether: " Die Entwicklung der Theorie der algebraischen
Funltionen," Jalves. dcr Dcut, Math.-Vcrcin, 3, 1892-93, 107-565.
Castclnuovo, G., and F. Enriques: " Die algebraischen Fliichen vom Gesichtspunkte
der birationalcn Transformationen," Encgk. dcr Marh. Wiss., B. G. Teubner,
l9o3-15, III C6b, 674-76a.
"Sur quelques rdcents rdsultats dans la th6orie des surfaces alg6briques,"
Math. Am.,'18, 1897' 241-916.
Caylcy, A.:
-: Colbctcd Matlpnatical Papcrs, lohnson Reprint Corp., 1963, Vols. 2, 4,
6,7, 10, 189l-96.
Cf,cbsch, R. F. A. : " Versuch einer Darlegung und Wi-irdigung seiner Wissen-
schaftlichen Leistungen," Math. Ann.,7, 1874, l-55. An article by friends
of Clebsch.
Cootidge, Julian L.: A History of Gconutrical Methods, Dover (reprint), 1963, pp.
t95-230,278-92.
Cremona, Lt:j,gi: Ofuc mallumaticlu,3 vols., Ulrico Hoepli, l9l,t-17.
Henscl, Kurt, and Georg Landsberg: Thcorie dcr algebraischen Futktionen cirur
Variabch (1902), Chelsea (reprint), 1965, pp. 694-702 in particular.
Hilbcrt, David,:. Gesamnullc Abhandhmgcn, Julius Springer, 1933, Vol. 2.
Klein, Felix: Vmhsungcn iiber dir Entwickhmg dcr Matlumatik i.m 19 Jahrhundtrt, l,
155-66, 295-3 l9 ; 2, 2-26, Chelsea (reprint), 1950.
Meyer, Franz W. : " Bericht iiber den gegenwiirtigen Stand der Invariantentheorie,"
Jahrcs. dcr Deut. Malh.-Vcrcin., l, 1890-91, 79-292.
National Research Council: Scleckd Topics in Algcbraic Geomctry, Chelsea (reprint),
1970.
Noether, Emmy: "Die arithmetische Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen einer
Veriinderlichen in ihrer Beziehung zu den iibrigen Theorien and zu der
Zahlentheorie," Jahres. da Deul. Math.-Vcreiz., 28, 1919, 182-203.
+o
The Instillation of Rigor in Analysis
But it would be a serious error to think that one can find
certainty only in geometrical demonstrations or in the
testimony of the senses. A. L. cAUcItY
l. Introduction
By about lB00 the mathematicians began to be concerned about the looseness
in the concepts and proofs ofthe vast branches of analysis. The very concePt
ol a function was not clear; the use of series without regard to convergence
and divergence had produced paradoxes and disagreements; the controversy
about the representations offunctions by trigonometric series had introduced
further confusion I and, of course, the fundamental notions of derivative and
integral had never been properly defined. All these difficulties finally brought
on dissatisflaction with the logical status of analysis.
Abel, in a letter of 1826 to Professor Christoffer Hansteen,l complained
about " the remendous obscurity which one unquestionably finds in analysis'
It lacks so completely all plan and system that it is peculiar that so many men
could have studied it. The worst ofit is, it has never been treated stringently.
There are very few theorems in advanced analysis which have been demon-
strated in a logically tenable manner. Everywhere one finds this miserable
way ofconcluding from the special to the general and it is extremely peculiar
that such a procedure has led to so few of the so-called paradoxes'"
Several mathematicians resolved to bring order out ofchaos' The leaders
of what is often called the critical movement decided to rebuild analysis
solely on the basis of arithmetical concepts. The beginnings of the movement
coincide with the creation of non-Euclidean geometry. An entirely difierent
group, except for Gauss, was involved in the latter activity and it is therefore
diffi"rtt to t.o"" any direct connection between it and the decision to found
analysis on arithmetic. Perhaps the decision was reached because the hope of
l. CEuarcs,2, 263-65.
947
g4B rHE TNSTTLLATTON OF RrGOR rN ANALYSTS
grounding analysis on geometry, which many seventeenth-century men often

asserted could be done, was blasted by the increasing complexity of the
eighteenth-century developments in analysis. However, Gauss had already
expressed his doubts as to the truth of Euclidean geometry as early as 1799,
and in l8l T he decided that truth resided only in arithmetic. Moreover,
during even the early work by Gauss and others on non-Euclidean geometry,
flaws in Euclid's development had already been noted. Hence it is very likely
that both factors caused distrust of geometry and prompted the decision to
found analysis on arithmetical concepts. This certainly was what the leaders
of the critical movement undertook to do.
Rigorous analysis begins with the work of Bolzano, Cauchy, Abel, and
Dirichlet and was furthered by Weierstrass. Cauchy and Weierstrass are
best known in this connection. Cauchy's basic works on the foundations of
analysis are his Cours d'andyse algibrique,2 Risumi des legons sur le calcul in-
fniksimal,s and. Legons sur le calcul difirenti.e l.a Actually Cauchy's rigor in
these works is loose by modern standards. He used phrases such as " approach
indefinitely," "as little as one wishes," "last ratios of infinitely small incre-
ments," and "a variable approaches its limit." However, if one compares
Lagrange's Thiorie des fonctions analytiquess and his Legons sur lc calcul des
fonctionso and the influential book by Lacroix, Traiti du calcul dffirentiel et du
cahtl inttgrall with the Cours d'analgse algibrique of Cauchy one begins to see
the striking difference between the mathematics of the eighteenth century
and that of the nineteenth. Lagrange, in particular, was purely formal. He
operated with symbolic expressions. The underlying concepts of limit,
continuity, and so on are not there.
Cauchy is very explicit in his introduction to the 182I work that he
seeks to give rigor to analysis. He points out that the free use for all functions
of the properties that hold for algebraic functions, and the use of divergent
series are notjustified. Though Cauchy's work was but one step in the direc-
tion of rigor, he himself believed and states in his Rinmi that he had brought
the ultimate in rigor into analysis. He did give the beginnings of precise
proofs of theorems and properly limited assertions at least for the elementary
functions. Abel in his paper of 1826 on the binomial series (sec. 5) praised
this achievement of Cauchy: "The distinguished work fthe Cours d'analysef
should be read by everyone who loves rigor in mathematical investigations. "
Cauchy abandoned the explicit representations of Euler and the power series
of Lagrange and introduced new concepts to treat functions.
2 . l82l , @uure s , (2) llI .

3. 1823, CEuwes, (2), lV, l-261.
4. 1829, CEwres, (2), |Y , 265-572.
5. 1797;Znd ed., l8l3: (Euares,9.
6. l80l; 2nd ed., 1806 : (Euures, 10.
7. 3 vols., lst ed., 1797-1800; 2nd ed., l8l0-19.
ruNcrroNs AND THEIR PROPERTTES 949
2. Functions and Their ProPerties

The eighteenth century mathematicians had on the whole believed that a
function must have the same analytic expression throughout. During the
latter part of the century, largely as a consequence ol the controversy over
the vibrating-string problem, Euler and Lagrange allowed functions that
have different expressions in different domains and used the word con-
tinuous where the same expression held and discontinuous at points where the
expression changed form (though in the modern sense the entire function
could be continuous). While Euler, d'Alembert, and Lagrange had to
reconsider the concept of function, they did not arrive at any widely ac-
cepted definition nor did they resolve the problem olwhat functions could be
represented by trigonometrical series. However, the gradual expansion in the
variety and use of functions forced mathematicians to accePt a broader
concept.
Gauss in his earlier work meant by a function a closed (finite analytical)
expression and when he spoke of the hypergeometric series tr.(cz, p, y, x) as
a function of a, p, y, and * he qualified it by the remark, " insofar as one can
regard it as a function." Lagrange had already used a broader concept in
regarding power series as functions. In the second edition of his Micaniquc
analytique (lBl l-15) he used the word function for almost any kind of de'
pendence on one or more variables. Even Lacroix in his TraitC of 1797 had
already introduced a broader notion. In the introduction he says, " Every
quantity whose value depends on one or several others is called a function of
the latter, whether one knows or one does not know by what operations it is
necessary to go from the latter to the first quantity." Lacroix gives as an
example a root ofan equation ofthe fifth degree as a function ofits coefficients.
Fourier's work opened up even more widely the question of what a
function is. On the one hand, he insisted that functions need not be represent-
able by any analytic expressions. In his The Analytieal Theory oJ Heats he says,
"In general the function;f(*) represents a succession of values or ordinates
each of which is arbitrary.. . . We do not suppose these ordinates to be
subject to a common law; they succeed each other in any manner what-
ever. . . ." Actually he himself treated only functions with a finite number of
discontinuities in any finite interval. On the other hand, to a certain extent
Fourier was supporting the contention that a function must be representable
by an analytic expression, though this expression was a Fourier series. In any
case Fourier's work shook the eighteenth-century belief that all functions
were at worst extensions of algebraic functions. The algebraic functions and
even the elementary transcendental functions were no longer the prototyPe
of functions. Since the properties of algebraic functions could no longer be
carried over to all functions, the question then arose as to what one really
8. English translation, p. 430, Dover (reprint), 1955.

95O THE INSTILL.I\TrON OF RIGOR rN ANALYSIS
means by a function, by continuity, differentiability, integrability, and other

propcrties.
In the positive reconstructions of analysis which many men undertook
the real number system was taken for granted. No attemPt was made to
analyze this structure or to build it up logically. Apparently the mathema-
ticiars felt they were on sure ground as far as this area was concerned.
Cauchy begins his 1821 work with the definition of a variable. "One
calls a quantity which one considers as having to successively assume many
values difierent from one another a variable." As for the concept offunction,
" When variable quantities are so joined between themselves that, the value
of one of these being given, one may determine the values of all the others,
one ordinarily conceives these diverse quantities expressed by means of the
one nmong them, which then takes the name independent variable; and the
other quantities expressed by means of the independent variable are those
which one calls functions of this variable." Cauchy is also explicit that an
infinite series is one way of speci$ing a function. However, an analytical
expression for a function is not required,
In a paper on Fourier series which we shall return to later, "Uber die
Darstellung ganz willkirlicher Functionen durch Sinus-und Cosinusreihen "
(On the Representation of Completely Arbitrary Functions by Sine and
Cosine Series),e Dirichlet gave the definition of a (single-valued) function
which is now most often employed, namely, that y is a function of , when to
each value of* in a given interval there corresponds a unique value ofy.
He added that it does not matter whether throughout this interval y depends
upon .r according to one law or more or whether the dependence ofy on x can
be expressed by mathematical operations. In fact in 182910 he gave the
example of a function of r which has the value a for all rational values of x
and the value d for all irrational values of *.
Hankel points out that the best textbooks of at least the first half of the
century were at a loss as to what to do about the function concept. Some
dcfined a function essentially in Euler's sensel others required that y vary
with x according to some law but did not explain what law meant; some used
Dirichlet's definition; and still others gave no definition. But all deduced
consequences from their definitions which were not logically implied by
the definitions.
The proper distinction between continuity and discontinuity gradually
emerged. The careful study of the properties of functions was initiated by
Bernhard Bolzano (1781-1848), a priest, philosopher, and mathematician
of Bohemia. Bolzano was led to this work by trying to give a purely arith-
metical proof of the fundamental theorem of al$ebra in place of Gauss's
first proof (1799) which used geometric ideas. Bolzano had the correct
9. l,1937,152-7+ : Wqkc, l, 135-60.
Rcpcrtorium der Plqsik,
10, Jour.far Math.,4, 1829, 157-69 : Werke, l,ll7-32.
FUNCTIONS AND TrrErR PROPERTTES 95I
concepts for the establishment of the calculus (except for a theory of real
numbers), but his work went unnoticed for half a century. He denied the
existence of infinitely small numbers (infinitesimals) and infinitely large
numbers, both of which had been used by the eighteenth-century writers. In
a book of I8l7 whose long title starts with Rein analytischer Beweis (see the
bibliography) Bolzano gave the proper definition of continuity, namely,
,f(x) is continuous in an interval if at any ,r in the interval the difference
f(x + a) - f(x) can be made as small as one wishes by taking ro sufficiently
small, He proves that polynomials are continuous.
Cauchy, too, tackled the notions of limit and continuity. As with
Bolzano the limit concept was based on purely arithmetical considerations.
In the Cours ( I 82l ) Cauchy says, " When the successive values attributed to a
variable approach indefinitely a fixed value so as to end by differing from it
by as little as one wishes, this last is called the limit of all the others. Thus,
for example, an irrational number is the limit of diverse fractions which
furnish closer and closer approximate values of it." This example was a bit
unfortunate because many took it to be a definition of irrational numbers in
terms of limit whereas the limit could have no meaning if irrationals were
not already present. Cauchy omitted it in his lB23 and lB29 works.
In the preface to his l82l work Cauchy says that to speak of the con-
tinuity of functions he must make known the principal ProPerties of in-
finitely small quantities. " One says fCours, p. 5] that a variable quantity
becomes infinitely small when its numerical value decreases indefinitely in
such a way as to converge to the limit 0." Such variables he calls infinites-
imals. Thus Cauchy clarifies Leibniz's notion of infinitesimal and frees it of
metaphysical ties. Cauchy continues, " One says that a variable quantity
becomes infinitely large when its numerical value increases indefinitely in
such a manner as to converge to the limit @." However, o means not a fixed
quantity but something indefinitely large.
Cauchy is now prepared to define continuity ofa function. In the Cours
(pp. 34-35) he says. "Letf(x) be a function of the variable r, and suppooe
that, for each value of .r intermediate between two given limits [bounds]' this
function constantly assumes a finite and unique value. If, beginning with a
value of x contained between these limits, one assigns to the variable * an
infinitely small increment c, the function itself will take on as an increment
the difference;f(: + c) -;t(x) which will depend at the same time on the
new variable cl and on the value of*. This granted, the function;f(x) will be'
between the two limits assigned to the variable x, a continuous function of the
variable if,, for each value of , intermediate bettveen these two limits, the
numerical value of the differencerf('r + u) - f (x) decreases indefinitely with
that of cr. In other words, tlu fwution f(x) will tcmain continuotr with rcspcct tt x
between tlu giaen limits, if,, betuen tluse limi*, an ilfiniuly snull hwcnvnt of tlu
aarinble alwags prodrues an irfrnitely small incremcnt of tlu fwctioil itsclf.
952 THE INSTTLLATTON OF RrCOR IN ANALYSIS
"We also say that the function;f(x) is a continuous function of x in the

neighborhood of a particular value assigned to the variable r, as long as it
[the function] is continuous between those two limits of x, no matter how
close together, which enclose the value in question." He then says that;[(x)
is discontinuous at ro if it is not continuous in every interval around xo.
In his Cours (p. 37) Cauchy asserted that ifa function ofseveral variables
is continuous in each one separately it is a continuous function of all the
variables. This is not correct.
Throughout the nineteenth century the notion of continuity was ex-
plored and mathematicians learned more about it, sometimes producing
results that astonished them. Darboux gave an example of a function which
took on all intermediate values between two given values in passing from
x : a to x : D but was not continuous. Thus a basic property of continuous
functions is not sufficient to insure continuity.lr
Weierstrass's work on the rigorization of analysis improved on Bolzano,
Abel, and Cauchy. He, too, sought to avoid intuition and to build on arith-
metical concepts. Though he did this work during the years 184l-56 when
he was a high-school teacher much of it did not become known until 1859
when he began to lecture at the University of Berlin.
Weierstrass attacked the phrase "a variable approaches a limit," which
unfortunately suggests time and motion. He interprets a variable simply as a
letter standing for any one ofa set of values which thc letter may be given.
Thus motion is eliminated. A continuous variable is one such that if ro is any
value ofthe set ofvalues ofthe variable and 6 any positive number therc are
other values of the variable in the interval (ro - 6, ro * 6).
To remove the vagueness in the phrase " becomes and remains less than
any given quantity," which Bolzano and Cauchy used in their definitions of
continuity and limit of a function, Weierstrass gave the now accepted
definition that f (x) is continuous at x : xo if given any positive number e,
there exists a 6 such that for all x in the interval l* - *ol < 6,
l-f@) -f(*il < c. A function;t(r) has a limit Z at x: to if the same
statement holds but with Z replacingJ@o).A function;[(x) is continuous in
an interval of* values if it is continuous at each * in the interval.
During the years in which the notion of continuity itself was being
refined, the efforts to establish analysis rigorously called for the proofofmany
theorems about continuous functions which had been accepted intuitively.
Bolzano in his lBlT publication sought to prove that if./(r) is negative for
x : a and positive for x : b, then f(x) has a zero between a and b. He
considered the sequence of functions (for fixed r)
(r) Fr(x), F,(x), F,(r),. .., F*(*), .. .
ll. Considery: sin(l/x) forxf O and y : Q for r : 0. This function goes through all
values from one assumed at a negative value of x to one assumed at a positive value of x,
However, it is not continuous at r: 0.
FUNCTIONS AND THEIR PROPERTIES 953
and introduced the theorem that if for z large enough we can make the
difference Fn*, - F.n less than any given quantity, no matter how large r is,
then there exists a fixed magnitude X such that the sequence comes closer
and closer to X, and indeed as close as one wishes. His determination of the
quantity X was somewhat obscure because he did not have a clear theory of
the real number system and of irrational numbers in particular on which to
build. However, he had the idea of what we now call the Cauchy condition
for the convergence of a sequence (see below).
In the course of the proof Bolzano established the existence of a least
upper bound for a bounded set of real numbers. His precise statement is: If
a property M does not apply to all values ofa variable quantity x, but to all
those that are smaller than a certain z, there is always a quantity U which is
the largest of those of which it can be asserted that all smalleru Possess the
property M.The essence of Bolzano's proof of this lemma was to divide the
bounded interval into two parts and select a Particular part containing an
infinite number of members of the set. He then repeats the Process until he
closes down on the number which is the least upper bound of the given set
of real numbers. This method was used by Weierstrass in the l860s, with
due credit to Bolzano, to prove what is now called the Weierstrass-Bolzano
theorem. It establishes for any bounded infinite set ofpoints the existence ofa
point such that in every neighborhood of it there are points of the set.
Cauchy had used without proof (in one of his proofs of the existence of
roots of a polynomial) the existence of a minimum of a continuous function
defined over a closed interval. Weierstrass in his Berlin lectures proved for
any continuous function of one or more variables defined over a closed
bounded domain the existence of a minimum value and a maximum value
of the function.
In work inspired by the ideas of Georg Cantor and Weierstrass, Heine
12 and
defined uniform continuity for functions of one or several variables
then proved 13 that a function which is continuous on a closed bounded
interval ol the real numbers is uniformly continuous. Heine's method
introduced and used the following theorem: Let a closed interval la, bl arrd
a countably infinite set A of intervals, all in [a, D], be given such that every
point x of a < x < b is an interior point of at least one of the intervals of A.
(The endpoints a and D are regarded as interior points when a is the left-
hand end ofan interval and D the right-hand end ofanother interval.) Then a
set consisting of a fnite number of the intervals of A has the same ProPerty'
namely, every point ofthe closed interval [a, D] is an interior Point ofat least
one of this finite set of intervals (a and, b can be endpoints).
Emile Borel (l87l-1956), one of the leading French mathematicians of
this century, recognized the importance of being able to select a finite
number of covering intervals and first stated it as an independent theorem
12. Jour. far Math.,7l, 1870, 353-65.
13. Jour..fir Morh.,74, 1872, 172-88.
954 Tr{E TNSTTLLATTON OF RrGOR rN ANALYSTS
for the case when the original set of intervals A is countable.la Though many
German and French mathematicians refer to this theorem as Borel's, since
Heine used the property in his proof of uniform continuity the theorem is also
known as the Heine-Borel theorem. The merit of the theorem, as Lebesgue
pointed out, is not in the proof of it, which is not difficult, but in perceiving
its importancc and enunciating it as a distinct theorem. The theorem applies
to closcd sets in any number of dimensions and is now basic in set theory.
The extension of the Heine-Borel theorem to the case where a finite set
of covering intervals can be selected from an uncountably infinite set is
usually credited to Lebesgue who claimed to have known the theorem in
1898 and published it in his hgons *r l'intlgration (l90t). However, it was
first published by Pierre Cousin (1867-1933) in 1895.15
3. Tlu Deriaatiae
D'Alembert was the first to see that Newton had essentially the correct
notion of tJre derivative. D'Alembert says explicitly in the Ercgclopidic that
the dcrivative must be based on the limit of the ratio of the differenccs of
dependent and independent variables. This version is a reformulation of
Newton's prime and ultimate ratio. D'Alembert did not go further because
his thoughts were still tied to geometric intuition. His successors of the next
fifty years still failed to give a clear definition ofthe derivative. Even Poisson
believcd that there are positive numbers that are not zero, but which are
snallcr than any given number however small.
Bolzano was the 6rst (l8l7) to define the derivative of;t(x) as the
quantity /'(*) which the ratio Nf@ + Lx) --f(*)ll&* approaches in-
definitely closely as A* approaches 0 through positive and negative values.
Bolzano emphasized that J'@) was not a quotient of zeros or a ratio of
evanGcent quantities but a number which the ratio above approached,
llnhis RlsmC dts hgonsLo Cauchy defined the derivative in the same man-
ner as Bolzano. He then unified this notion and the Leibnizian differentials
by dcfining dx to be any finite quantity and. dg to be f'(x) d*.1? In other
words, one introduces two quantities dx and. dy whose ratio, by definition, is
;f'(x). Difierentials have meaning in terms of the derivative and are merely
an auxiliary notion that could be dispensed with logically but are convenient
as a way ofthinking or writing. Cauchy also pointed out what the differential
cxpressions used throughout the eighteenth century meant in terms of
derivatives.
He then clarified the relation between Ay/A* andf'(x) through the mean
14. Am. dc I Ecoh Nwm. Sa!., (3), 12, 1895, 9-55.

15. Acta Math., 19, 1895, l-61.
16. 1823, @uvrcs, (2), 4,22.
17. Lacroix in the first edition ofhis Trairi bad already defined dy in this manner.
TIIE DERIVATTVE 955
value theorem, that is, Ay : f'(x + 0A*) A.r,whereO < 0 < l.Thetheorem
itself was known to Lagrange (Chap. 20, sec. 7). Cauchy's proofofthe mean
value theorem used the continuity of/'(*) in the interval A*.
Though Bolzano and Cauchy had rigorized (somewhat) the notions of
continuity and the derivative, Cauchy and nearly all mathematicians of
his era believed and many texts "proved" for the next fifty years that a
continuous function must be differentiable (except of course at isolated
points such as x : 0 for g : Llx). Bolzano did understand the distinction
between continuity and differentiability. In his Funktionmlehra, which he
wrote in lB34 but did not complete and publish,ls he gave an example of a
continuous function which has no finite derivative at any Point. Bolzano's
example, like his other works, was not noticed.le Even if it had been published
in 1834 it probably would have made no impression because the curve did
not have an analytic representation, and for mathematicians of that period
functions were still entities given by analytical expressions.
The example that ultimately drove home the distinction between con-
tinuity and differentiability was given by Riemann in the Habilitations-
schrift, the paper of 1854 he wrote to qualify as a Priaatdozent at Giittingen,
" LJber die Darstellbarkeit einer Function durch eine trigonometrische
Reihe," (On the Representability of a Function by a Trigonometric Series).2o
(The paper on the foundations of geometry (Chap. 37, sec. 3) was given as a
qualifying lccture.) F':iernann defined the following function. Let (x) denote
the difference between .r and the nearest integer and let (x) : 0 if it is
halfway between two integers. Then - ll2 < (x) < l/2. Now;t(r) is defined
as
r@):+ *? *$ *
This series converges for all values of *. However, for x : pl2n where p is an
integer prime to 2n, f (x) is discontinuous and has a jump whose value is
# l\nz. At all other values of *, ;[(r) is continuous. Moreover, 1f(.r) is dis-
continuous an infinite number of times in every arbitrarily small interval.
Nevertheless, ;t(x) is integrable (sec. 4). Moreover, f (r) : J,f{") A, ir
"""-
tinuous for all x but fails to have a derivative where;[(x) is discontinuous.
This pathological function did not attract much attention until it was
published in
1868.
An even more striking distinction between continuity and differentia-
bility was demonstrated by the Swiss mathematician Charles Cell6rier
18. Schiftcx, l, Prague, 1930. It was edited and publishcd by K. Rychlik, Prague, 1930.
19. In 1922 Rychlik proved that the function was nowhere differentiablc. Sce Gcrhard
Kowalcwski, "Uber Bolzanos nichtdiffercnzierbare stetige Funktion," Acta Math., 44,
1923, 315-19. This article contains a description of Bolzano's function.
20. Abh. der Gcs. dcr Wkl zu Gdtt., 13, 1868, 87-132 : Wcrkc,227-$4.
956 THE rNsrrLLATIoN oF RIcoR rN ANALYSIS
(lBlB-89). In 1860 he gave an example of a function which is continuous

but nowhere differentiable, namely,
f@:;a-ositranx
in which a is a large positive integer. This was not published, however, until
1890.'r The example that attracted the most attention is due to Weierstrass.
As far back as 186l he had affirmed in his lectures that any attemPt to
prove that differentiability follows from continuity must fail. He then gave
the classic example of a continuous nowhere differentiable function in a
lecture to the Berlin Academy on July 18, 1872.22 Weierstrass communicated
his example in a letter of lB74 to Du Bois-Reymond and the example was
first published by the latter.23 Weierstrass's function is
:;,bn cos (ao.ox)

'f'4
wherein a is an odd integer and D a positive constant less than I such that
ab > I + (3zr/2). The series is uniformly convergent and so defines a con-
tinuous function. The example given by Weierstrass prompted the creation
of many more functions that are continuous in an interval or everywhere but
flail to be differentiable either on a dense set of points or at any point,2a
The historical significance of the discovery that continuity does not
imply differentiability and that functions can have all sorts of abnormal
behavior was great. It made mathematicians all the more fearful of trusting
intuition or geometrical thinking.
4. The Intcgral
Newton's work showed how areas could be found by reversing diflerentiation.
This is of course still the essential method. Leibniz's idea of area and volume
as a "sum" of elements such as rectangles or cylinders [the definite integral]
was neglected. When the latter concept was employed at all in the eighteenth
century it was loosely used.
Cauchy stressed defining the integral as the limit ofa sum instead ofthe
inverse of differentiation. There was at least one major reason for the change.
2l- Bull. des Sci. Math., (2), 14, 1890, 142-60.

22. Werke,2, ? l-74.
23. Jour..ftir Math., 79, 1A75, 2l-37.
24. Other examples and references can be found in E, J. Townsend, Furctions of Rcal
Yariables, Henry Holt, 1928, and in E. W. Hobson, The Theory of Fututions of a Real Variable,
2, Chap.6, Dover (reprint), 1957.
THE INTEGRAL 957
Fourier, as we know, dealt with discontinuous functions, and the formula for
the coefficients of a Fourier series, namely,
o, : ! -ftr) cos nx dx, o^ : ! tal sin nx dx

['" !'"
calls for the integrals of such functions, Fourier regarded the integral as a
sum (the Leibnizian view) and so had no difficulty in handling even dis-
continuous jf(.r) . The problem of the analytical meaning of the integral when
;f(x) is discontinuous had, however, to be considered.
Cauchy's most systematic attack on the definite integral was made in his
Risumi (1823) wherein he also points out that it is necessary to establish the
existence of the definite integral and indirectly of the antiderivative or
primitive function befiore one can use them. He starts with continuous
functions.
For continuous;f (.r) he gives25 the precise definition ofthe integral as the
limit of a sum. If the interval [.rs, X] is subdivided by the *-values,
xu )c*..., x,,-r, with xn : X, then the integral is
,li->/(f,)kt-tct-r),
where (, is any value of x in[*,-r, *,]. The definition presupposes that/(r) is
continuous over [xo, Xf and that the length of the largest subinterval
approaches zero. The definition is arithmetical. Cauchy shows the integral
exists no matter how the .r, and f1 are chosen. However, his proof was not
rigorous because he did not have the notion ofuniform continuity. He denotes
the limit by the notation proposed by Fourier IX,f@ a, in place of
[rut arff::i1
often employed by Euler for antidifferentiation.
Cauchy then defines
F(,) : li"tat or
and shows that F(x) is continuous in [xo, X]. By forming
F(x + etti----F//'\ :;).
t rz+h
-f(*) d*
and using the mean value theorem for integrals Cauchy proves that
F'(x) : f(x).
25. Riaurui,8l-a4 - @uaru, (2), 4, 122-27.
958 THE rNsrrLLATroN oF RrGoR rN ANALYS$
This is the fundamental theorem of the calculus, and Cauchy's presentation

is the first demonstration of it. Then, after showing that all primitives of a
given;f(*) differ by a constant he defines the indefinite integral as
[rc]*:!-*ldx+c.
He points out that
!'t'at:-f(o) --f(o)
presupposes ;f'(*) continuous. Cauchy then treats the singular (improper)
integrals where;f(r) becomes infinite at some value of * in the interval of
integration or where the interval of integration extends to co. For the case
whererf(r) has a discontinuity at , : c at which value;f(r) may be bounded
or not Cauchy defines
llrat *: lHJ.-"'r@) dx +
I\l".""tat
o.
when these limits exist. When er : s2 we get what Cauchy called the principal
value.
The notions of area bounded by a curve, length of a curve, volume
bounded by surfaces and areas of surfaces had been accepted as intuitively
understood, and it had been considered one of the great achievements of the
calculus that these quantities could be calculated by means ofintegrals. But
Cauchy, in keeping with his goal of arithmetizing analysis, dtfined these
geometric quantities by means of the integrals which had been formulated
to calculate them. Cauchy unwittingly imposed a limitation on the concePts
he defined because the calculus formulas impose restrictions on the quantities
involved. Thus the formula for the length of arc of a curve given by S : "f(*)
is
,:l'47aaY6
and this formula presupposes the differentiability of;f(r). The question of
what are the most general definitions ofareas, lengths ofcurves, and volumes
was to be raised later (Chap. 42, sec. 5).
Cauchy had proved the existence of an integral for any continuous
integrand. He had also defined the integral when the integrand has jump
discontinuities and infinities. But with the growth of analysis the need to
consider integrals of more irregularly behaving functions became manifest.
The subject ofintegrability was taken up by Riemann in his paper of 1854 on
trigonometric series. fle says that it is important at least for mathematics,
though not for physical applications, to consider the broader conditions
under which the integral formula for the Fourier coefrcients holds.
TTIE INTEGRAL 959
Riemann generalized the integral to cover functions;f(x) defined and

bounded over an interval fa, bl. He breaks up this interval into subinter-
vals26 A*1, A*r,...,Arn and defines the oscillation of;f(r) in Ax, as the
difference between the greatest and least value of/(*) in A*,. Then he proves
that a necessary and sufficient condition that the sums
s: j/{,,)a*,,
l=1
where *, is any value of r in Ax,, approach a unique limit (that the integral
exists) as the maximum Ar, approaches zero is that the sum of the intervals
A*, in which the oscillation of/(r) is greater than any given number I must
approach zero with the size of the intervals.
Riemann then points out that this condition on the oscillations allows
him to replace continuous functions by functions with isolated discontinuities
and also by functions having an everywhere dense set of points of dis-
continuity. In fact the example he gave of an integrable function with an
infinite number of discontinuities in every arbitrarily small interval (sec. 3)
was offered to illustrate the generality of his integral concept. Thus Riemann
dispensed with continuity and piecewise continuity in the definition of the
integral.
In his 1854 paper Riemann with no further remarks gives another
necessary and sufficient condition that a bounded function;f(x) be integrable
on la, b). It amounts to first setting up what are now called the upper and
lower sums
S : MrAxl *. .'* MnMo
s : mrLtt 1"'* mnLxn
where z, ar,d, M1 are the least and greatest values of ;f(.r) in A*,. Then
letting D, : Mr - n1, Riemann states that the integral of J@) over la, bf
exists if and only if
lim {D, Ax1 } DrLx, +...+D,,Arn}:Q

aar A, +0
for all choices of A.r, filling out the interval [a, D]. Darboux completed this
formulation and proved that the condition is necessary and sufficient.2?
There are many values of S each corresponding to a partition of [a, D] into
Ax,. Likewise there are many values of .r. Each S is called an uPper sum and
each s a lower sum. Let the greatest lower bound of the S be J and the least
upper bound of the s be .L It follows that / < J. Darboux's theorem then
states that the sums S and s tend respectively to "I and I when the number of
26. For brevity we use Ar1 for the subintervals and their length.s.
27. Ann. dcI'kole Norm. Sup., (2), 4, 1875, 57-112.
960 THE INSTTLLATIoN oF RrGoR rN ANALYSIS
A.r, is increased indefinitely in such a way that the maximum subinterval

approaches zero. A bounded function is said to be integrable on [a,6] if
J:1.
Darboux then shows that a bounded function will be integrable on
[a, D] if and only if the discontinuities in./(r) constitute a set of measure zero.
By the latter he meant that the points of discontinuity can be enclosed in a
finite set of intervals whose total length is arbitrarily small. This very
formulation of the integrability condition was given by a number of other
men in the same year (1875). The terms upper integral and the notation
T,-f(r) * for the greatest lower bound J of the S's, and
lower integral and
the notation I'"t<rl a* for the Ieast upper bound /of the s's were introduced
by Volterra.2E
Darboux also showed in the 1875 Paper that the fundamental theorem
of the calculus holds for functions integrable in the extended sense. Bonnet
had given a proofofthe mean value theorem ofthe differential calculus which
did not use the continuity of f'(x).2s Darboux using this proof, which is now
standard, showed that
dx:f(h) - f(o)
['ral
when .,7f is merely integrable in the Riemann-Darboux sense. Darboux's
argrrment was that
.f(t) - f(o) : ft{ - .f(,c,-,),

l=1
where a : io ( rr < 12 <' " I xn : D. By the mean value theorem
- -f(*,-,) =)f'tt,)(,, - *r-,),

)*,1
where l, is some value in (r,-r, r,). Now if the maximum Lxr, or i, - *i-r,
approaches zero then the right side of this last equation approaches
Ilf Al a- and the left side isf(b) - f(a).
One of the favorite activities of the l870s and the lBB0s was to con-
struct functions with various infinite sets of discontinuities that would still be
integrable in Riemann's sense. In this connection H.J. S. Smith gave the
30
first example of a function nonintegrable in Riemann's sense but lor which

the points of discontinuity were " rare." Dirichlet's function (sec. 2) is also
nonintegrable in this sense, but it is discontinuous everywhere.
The notion ofintegration was then extended to unbounded functions and
28. Gior. di Ma.., 19, 1881, 333-72.
29. Published in Serret's Cours de calcul difhentiel et intigtal, l, 1868, 17-19.
30. Proc, Lon, Math..Soc., 6, 1875, 140-53 = Coll. Papers,2, 86-100.
TNFTNTTE SERTES 96r
to various improper integrals. The most significant extension was made in
the next century by Lebesgue (Chap. 44). However, as far as the elementary
calculus was concerned the notion of integral was by lB75 sufficiently broad
and rigorously founded.
The theory of double integrals was also tackled. The simpler cases had
been treated in the eighteenth century (Chap. 19, sec. 6). In his paper of
lB14 (Chap. 27, sec. 4) Cauchy showed that the order ofintegration in which
one evaluates a double integral J J/(r , y) dx dy does matter if the integrand
is discontinuous in the domain of integration. Specifically Cauchy pointed
out31 that the repeated integrals
!"rr(!,*,r, ,1, t a"(J'*,a au)
need not be equal when;fis unbounded.

Karl J. Thomae (1840-1921) extended Riemann's theory ofintegration
to functions of two variables.s2 Then Thomae in lBTBss gave a simple
example of a bounded function for which the second repeated integral
exists but the first is meaningless.
In the examples of Cauchy and Thomae the double integral does not
exist. But in lBB33a Du Bois-Reymond showed that even when the double
integral exists the two repeated integrals need not. In the case of double
integrals too the most significant generalization was made by Lebesgue.
5. Infinite Series
The eighteenth-century mathematicians used series indiscriminately. By the
end of the century some doubtful or plainly absurd results from work with
infinite series stimulated inquiries into the validity of operations with tlem.
Around l8l0 Fourier, Gauss, and Bolzano began the exact handling of
infinite series. Bolzano stressed that one must consider convergence and
criticized in particular the loose proof of the binomial theorem. Abel was the
most outspoken critic of the older uses of series.
In his lSll paper and his Analytical Theory of l/aat Fourier gave a
satislactory definition of convergence of an infinite series, though in general
he worked freely with divergent series. In the book (p. 196 of the English
edition) he describes convergence to mean that as z increases the sum ofz
terms approaches a fixed value more and more closely and should differ from
it only by a quantity which becomes less than any given magnitude. More-
over, he recognized that convergence ofa series offunctions may obtain only
31. Mimoire of l8l4; see, in particular, p. 394 of @wr*, (l), l.

32. kil.fb Math. wd Plrys., 2l, 1876, 224-27.
33, Zeit, fnr Math. uxd Phys,,23, 1878, 67-68.
34. Jour. fir Math.,94, 1883, 273-90.
962 TrrE rNsrILLATroN oF RrGoR rN ANALYSIS
in an interval of * values, He also stressed that a necessary condition for

convergence is that the terms aPProach zero in value. However, the series
I - I + I +. .' still fooled him; he took its sum to be l/2.
The first imPortant and strictly rigorous investigation of convergence
was made by Gauss in his IBl2 paper " Disquisitiones Generales Circa
Seriem Infinitam " (General Investigations of Infinite Series)86 wherein he
studied the hypergeometric series F(o , F, y, x). In most of his work he called
a scrics convergent if the terms from a certain one on decrease to zero. But in
his l8l2 paper he noted that this is not the correct concept. Because the
hypergeometric series can rePresent many functions for different choices of
a, B, and 7 it seemed desirable to him to develop an exact criterion for con-
vergence for this series. The criterion is laboriously arrived at but it does
settle the question of convergence for the cases it was designed to cover' He
showed that the hypergeometric series converges for real and complex r if
lrl < I and diverges if lxl > l. For x : l, the series converges ifand only if
a * F < yandforx : -l the series converges ifand only if c + F < y * l.
The unusual rigor discouraged interest in the paper by mathematicians of
the time. Moreover, Gauss was concerned with particular series and did not
taLe up general principles of the convergence of series.
Though Gauss is often mentioned as one ofthe first to recognize the need
to retrict the use of series to their domains of convergence he avoided any
decisivc position. He was so much concerned to solve concrete problems by
numerical calculation that he used Stirling's divergent development of the
gamma function. When he did investigate the convergence of the hypergeo-
metric series in l8l2 he remarked 38 that he did so to please those who
favored the rigor of the ancient geometers, but he did not state his own stand
on thc subject. In the course of his paper3? he used the development of
log (2 - 2 cos r) in cosines of multiples ofx even though there was no proof
of the convergence of this series and there could have been no proof with the
techniques available at the time. In his astronomical and geodetic work
Gauss, like the eighteenth-century men, followed the practice of using a
6nite number of terms of an infinite series and neglecting the rest. He stoPped
including terms when he saw that the succeeding terms were numerically
small and of course did not estimate the error.
Poisson too took a peculiar position. He rejecte{ divergent seriesss and
even gave examples of how reckoning with divergent series can lead to false
rcsults. But he nevertheless made extensive use of divergent series in his
representation of arbitrary functions by series of trigonometric and spherical
functions.
35. Comm. Soe. Gott.,2' 1813, = l$ak,3, 12542 and 207-29'
36. Wcrhe, 3, 129.
37. Wcrhc, 3, 156,
38. Jots. th l) Ecoh Poly., 19' 1823, '10'$-509.
rNFrNrrE sERrEs 963
Bolzano in his lBlT publication had the correct notion of the condition
for the convergence of a sequence, the condition now ascribed to Cauchy.
Bolzano also had clear and correct notions about the convergence of series.
But, as we have already noted, his work did not become widely known.
Cauchy's work on the convergence of series is the first extensive sig-
nificant treatment of the subject. ln his Cours d'analyse Cauchy says, " Let
Sa: Uo + ur + uz *... * ut_t
be the sum of the first z terms [of the infinite series which one considers], z
designating a natural number. If, for constantly increasing values of z, the
sum rn approaches indefinitely a certain limit .r, the series will be called
conoergent, and the limit in question will be called the surn of the series.ss On
the contrary, if while a increases indefinitely, the sum s,, does not approach
a fixed limit, the series will be called dioergent and will have no sum."
After defining convergence and divergence Cauchy states (Cozrs, p. 125)
the Cauchy convergence criterion, namely, a sequence {So} converges to a
limit S if and only if S,,*, - So can be made less in absolute value than any
assignable quantity for all r and sufficiently large a. Cauchy proves this
condition is necessary but merely remarks that if the condition is fulfilled, the
convergence ofthe sequence is assured. He lacked the knowledge ofproperties
of real numbers to make the proof.
Cauchy then states and proves specific tests for the convergence of
series with positive terms. He points out that 4, must approach zero. Another
test (Cours, 132-35) requires that one find the limit or limits toward which the
expression (u,,)l/n tends as z becomes infinite, and designate the greatest of
these limits by,t. Then the series will be convergent if /c < I and divergent
if tr > l. He also gives the ratio test which uses lil:ro-- uoarlun If this limit
is less than I the series converges and if greater than l, the series diverges.
Special tests are given if the ratio is l. There follow comparison tests and a
logarithmic test. He proves that the sum un + t,n of two convergent series
converges to the sum of the separate sums and the analogous result for prod-
uct. Series with some negative terms, Cauchy shows, converge when the series
of absolute values of the terms converge, and he then deduces Leibniz's test
for alternating series.
Cauchy also considered the sum of a series
Zu,k) : ur(x) * us@) + u,(*) +. ..

in which all the terms are continuous, single-valued real functions. The
theorems on the convergence ofseries of constant terms apply here to deter-
mine an interval of convergence, He also considers series with complex
functions as terms.
39. Thc correct notion ofthe limit of a sequence was givcn by Wallis in 1655 (Opcra,1695,
l, 382) but was not tak€n up.
964 THE rNsrILLATroN oF RrcoR rN ANALysIs
Lagrange was the first to state Taylor's theorem with a remainder but
Cauchy in his 1823 and lB29 texts made the important point that the infinite
Taylor series converges to the function from which it is derived if the re-
mainder approaches zero. He gives the example s- x' 1 s- 1tx2 of a function
whose Taylor series does not converge to the function. In his lB23 text he
gives the example e-rtxz of a function which has all derivatives at * : 0 but
has no Taylor expansion around * : 0. Here he contradicts by an example
Lagrange's assertion in lis Thiorie dzs fonetions (Ch. V., Art. 30) that if
/(*) has at *6 all derivatives then it can be expressed as a Taylor series which
converges to;f(*) for x rl.eal. xo. Cauchy also gaveao an alternative form for
the remainder in Taylor's formula.
Cauchy here made some additional missteps with respect to rigor. In his
Cours d'analyse (pp. t 3l-32) he states that F(.r) is continuous if when
.F(*) : Ifl z"(*) the series is convergent and the un(x) arc continuous. In his
Rlstml dts hgonsaL he says that if the u,(x) are continuous and the series
converges then one may integrate the series term by term; that is,
fb
I Fdz: ZI""r-.
t" 1
He overlooked the need for uniform convergence. He also asserts for con-
tinuous functions a2 that
d,c:
*tto,u) tg^*
Cauchy's work inspired Abel. Writing to his former teacher Holmboe
from Paris in 1826 Abel said aa Cauchy "is at present the one who knows how
mathematics should be treated." In that yearaa Abel investigated the domain
of convergence of the binomial series
t + ** +fu;) r, -m(n - t)-.(m - 2)

xs +..'
with rn and x complex. He expressed astonishment that no one had pre-
viously investigated the convergence of this most important series. He
proves first that if the series
-f(") : t)s I 01a ! a2a2 { "''

wherein the a,'s are constants and a is real, converges for a value E ofo then
it will converge for every smaller value of a, and.f(a - B) for p approaching
40. Exercices de mathimatiques, l, 1826,5: (Euarcs, (2),6,3842.
41. 1523, CEuures, (2),4, p.237.
42. Exercices de mathimatiques, 2, 1827 : CEuures, (2),7, 16O.
43, (Euures,2,259.
44. Jour, fiir Math., l, 1826, 3l l-39 : (Euorest l, 219-50.
INFINITE SERIES 965
0 will approach;t(cr) when cr is equal to or smaller than E. The last part says
that a convergent lluer series is a continuous function of its argument up to
and including E, for a can be 3.
In this same 1826 paperas Abel corrected Cauchy's error on the con-
tinuity ofthe sum ofa convergent series ofcontinuous functions. He gave the
example of
(2)
. sin 2x sin 3x
srn.r-l-+--3-...
which is discontinuous when x : (2n + l)z and z is integral, though the
individual terms are continuous.a6 Then by using the idea of rniform
convergence he gave a correct proof that the sum ofa uniformly convergent
series of continuous functions is continuous in the interior of the interval of
convergence. Abel did not isolate the property of uniform convergence ofa
series.
The notion of uniform convergence of a series 2f u"(x) requires that
given any e, there exists an try' such that for all z > lf, lS(x)
- \i u^(x)l < e
for all x in some interval. S (.r) is of course the sum of the series. This notion
was recognized in and for itself by Stokes, a leading mathematical physicist,az
and independently by Philipp L. Seidel (1821-96).48 Neither man gave the
precise formulation. Rather both showed that if a sum of a series of con-
tinuous functions is discontinuous at xo then there are values ofx near ro for
which the series converges arbitrarily slowly. Also neither related the need
for uniform convergence to the justification of integrating a series term by
term. In fact, Stokes acceptedae Cauchy's use of term-by-term integration.
Cauchy ultimately recognized the need for uniform convergenceso in order
to assert the continuity ofthe sum ofa series ofcontinuous functions but even
he at that time did not see the error in his use of term-by-term integration of
series.
Actually Weierstrass 51 had the notion of uniform convergence as early
as 1842. fn a theorem that duplicates unknowingly Cauchy's theorem on the
existence of power series solutions of a system of first order ordinary dif-
ferential equations, he affirms that the series converge uniformly and so
constitute analytic functions of the complex variable. At about the same time
45. CEuores, l, 224.
46. The series (2) is the Fourier expansion ofr/2 in the interval -zr < x < a. Hcncc the
series represents the periodic function which is r/2 in each 2z intcrval. Thcn thc scrics
converges to rl2 wheIf, r approaches (2n * l)r from the left and thc serics convcrgcl to
-zl2 whera r approaches (2n * l)z from the right.
î0c.,85, 18.18,53H3: Math. and Phys. Papcrs, 1,2rc4l3.
47. Trars. Camb. Phil.
48. Abh. der Bager. Akad. der Wiss., 1847149,379-94.
49. Papers, 1,2+2,255,268, and 283.
50. Comp. Rerd.,36, 1853, 45,+-59: (Ew,rcs, (l), 12, 30-36.
51. Werke, l, 67-45.
966 THE rNs'flLLATroN oF RrcoR rN ANALYSTS
Weierstrass used the notion of uniform convergence to give conditions for the
integration ofa series term by term and conditions for differentiation under
the integral sign.
Through Weierstrass's circle of students the importance of uniform
convergence was made known. Heine emphasized the notion in a paper on
trigonometric series.63 Heine may have learned of the idea through Georg
Cantor who had studied at Berlin and then came to Halle in 1867 where
Heine was a professor of mathematics.
'Weierstrass
During his years as a high-school teacher also discovered
that any continuous function over a closed interval of the real axis can be
exprcsscd in that interval as an absolutely and uniformly convergent series
of polynomials. Weierstrass included also functions of several variables.
This rcsult 53 aroused considerable interest and many extensions of this
result to the representation of complex functions by a series of polynomials or
a series of rational functions were established in the last quarter ol the
ninctcenth ccntury.
It had been assumed that the terms ofa series can be rearranged at will.
In a papcr of 18375{ Dirichlet proved that in an absolutely convergent series
one may group or rearange terms and not change the sum. He also gave
exarnples to show that the terms ofany conditionally convergent series can be
rearrauged so that the sum is altered. Riemann in a paper written in lB54
(see below) proved that by suitable rearrangement ofthe terms the sum could
be any given number. Many more criteria for the convergence of infinite
scries were developed by leading mathematicians from the lB30s on through-
out the rest of the century,
6. Fouricr Snizs
As we know Fourier's work showed that a wide class of functions can be
rcprcsentd by trigonometric series. The problem of finding precise con-
ditions on the functions which would possess a convergent Fourier series
rcmained open. Efforts by Cauchy and Poisson were fruitless.
Dirichlet took an interest in Fourier series after meeting Fourier in
Paris during the years 1822-25. In a basic paper "Sur la convergence des
sdries trigonomdtriques" 55 Dirichlet gave the first set of sufuimt conditions
that the Fourier series representing a given;f(x) converge and converge to
;t(r). The proof given by Dirichlet is a refinement ofthat sketched by Fourier
in the concluding sections of his Analytical Tluory oJ Heat. Consider;[(*) either
52. Jour.ftu Math.,7l' 1870, 353-65.
53- Sitzungsbcr. Akatl. Wbs. zu Boilin, 1885, 633-39, 789-905 :
Weilse' 3' l-??.
54. Abh, Kdnig. Akad. dq Wiss., Berlin, 1837, 45-gl = Wetkc, l' 313-342 : Jour. dc Math,,
4, 1839,393422.
55. Jotr. ftu Math., 4, 1829, 157-69 : Werke, l, ll7-32.
FOURIER SERIES s67
given periodic with period 2zr or given in the interval f-n, n) and defined to
be periodic in each interval of length 2z to the left and right of l-n, r].
Dirichlet's conditions are :
(") -f(*) is single-valued and bounded.
(b) is piecewise continuous; that is, it has only a finite number of
"f(r)
discontinuities in the (closed) period.
@) J@) is piecewise monotone; that is, it has only a finite number of
maxima and minima in one period.
The/(*) can have different analytic representations in different parts of the

fundamental period.
Dirichlet's method of proof was to make a direct summation of z terms
and to investigate what happens as z becomes infinite. He proved that for any
given value of .r the sum of the series isrf(x) provided..if(x) is continuous at
that value of r and is (ll2)Nf@ - O) + f(x + 0)l if/(r) is discontinuous at
that value of *.
In his proof Dirichlet had to give a careful discussion of the limiting
values of the integrals
fa
1"11*1\-tl6*,
Jo" 'srn, '
a>o
lb
l"114YEa*,
J4- 'srnf ' b>a>o
as g, increases indefinitely. These are still called the Dirichlet integrals.
It was in connection with this work that he gave the function which is c
for rational values ofx and dfor irrational values ofx (sec. 2). He had hoped
to generalize the notion of integral so that a larger class of functions could
still be representable by Fourier series converging to these functions, but the
particular function just noted was intended as an example of one which
could not be included in a broader notion of integral.
Riemann studied for a while under Dirichlet in Berlin and acquired an
interest in Fourier series. In 1854 he took up the subject in his Habilitalions-
schrift (probationary essay) at Gtittingen,so "Uber die Darstellbarkeit einer
Function durch eine trigonometrische Reihe," which aimed to find necessary
and sufficient conditions that a function must satisfy so that at a point x in the
interval l-n, n) the Fourier series for;t(x) should converge to f (x).
Riemann did prove the fundamental theorem that if;f(x) is bounded
and iqtegrable in [-2, z] then the Fourier coefficients
(s) : cosnx dx, u : )!-,tt-) sinnx dx

^ |l_,tt.)
56. Abh, dn Gcs, dcr Wiss. zt! Gt,t., 13, 1868, 87-132 : Wctk,227-&.
968 THE INSTTLLATIoN oF RIGoR rN ANALYSIS
approach zero as n tends to infinity. The theorem showed too that for
bounded and integrable;t(x) the convergence olits Fourier series at a point
in [-zr, zr] depends only on the behavior of/(*) in the neighborhood ofthat
point. However, the problem offinding necessary azd sufficient conditions on
/(r) so that its Fourier series converges to .it(r) was not and has not been
solved.
Riemann opened up another line of investigation. He considered
higonometric series but did not require that the coefficients be determined by
the formula (3) for the Fourier coefficients. He starts with the series
.o.3
(4)
)c"sin * *? + f bncosnx
t1
and defines
h:Lb" A"(x) : aosin n* ! bn cos nx.
Then the series (4) is equal to
P1 : )e^6'
a=0
Of course ;1"(r) has a value only for those values of r for which the series
converges. Let us refer to the series itself by O. Now the terms of
() may
apploach zero for all r or for some f,. These two cases are treated separately
byRiemann.
Ifao and 6,n approach zero, the terms of f) approach zero for all x. Let
F(x) be the function
r(,): c+c'x*n"+- A,-+- -#
which is obtained by two successive integrations of O. Riemann shows that
J0(.r) converges for all r and is continuous in *. Then F(*) can itself be
integrated. Riemann now proves a number of theorems about F(r) which
lead in turn to necessary and sufficient conditions for a series ofthe form (4)
to converge to a given function;f(x) of period 2zr. He then gives a necessary
and sufficient condition that the trigonometric series (4) converge at a
particular value of*, with 4,, and D,, still approaching 0 as n approaches co'
Next he considers the alternate case where limn- - An depends on the
value of .r and gives conditions which hold when the series cl is convergent
for particular values of; and a criterion for convergence at particular values
of ,.
He also shows that a given /(.r) may be integrable and yet not have a
Fourier series representation. Further there are nonintegrable functions to
FOURTER SERTES 969
which the series Q converges for an infinite number of values of # taken
between arbitrarily close limits. Finally a trigonometric series can converge
for an infinite number of values of r in an arbitrarily small interval even
though an and Dn do not approach zero for all r.
The nature of the convergence of Fourier series received further atten-
tion after the introduction of the concept of uniform convergence by Stokes
and Seidel. It had been known since Dirichlet's time that the series were, in
general, only conditionally convergent, if at all, and that their convergence
depended upon the presence ofpositive and negative terms. Heine noted in a
paper of 18705? that the usual proof that a bounded;f(x) is uniquely
represented between -z and zr by a Fourier series is incomplete because the
series may not be uniformly convergent and so cannot be integrated term by
term. This suggested that there may nevertheless exist nonuniformly con-
verging trigonometric series which do represent a function. Moreover, a
continuous function might be representable by a Fourier series and yet the
series might not be uniformly convergent. These problems gave rise to a new
series of investigations seeking to establish the uniqueness ofthe representa-
tion of a function by a trigonometric series and whether the coefficients are
necessarily the Fourier coemcients. Heine in the above-mentioned paper
proved that a Fourier series which represents a bounded function satisrying
the Dirichlet conditions is uniformly convergent in the portions of the interval
l- o, n) which remain when arbitrarily small neighborhoods of the points of
discontinuity of the function are removed from the interval. In these neigh-
borhoods the convergence is necessarily nonuniform. Heine then proved that
if the uniform convergence just specified holds for a trigonometric series
which represents a function, then the series is unique.
The second result, on uniqueness, is equivalent to the statement that if
a trigonometric series of the form
do-.S
(s) (ao cos nx * bnsin nx)
is uniformly convergent and represents zero where convergent, that is, except
on a finite set P ofpoints, then the coemcients are all zero and ofcourse then
the series represents zero throughout l-zr, n).
The problems associated with the uniqueness of trigonometric and
Fourier series attracted Georg Cantor, who studied Heine's work. Cantor
began his investigations by seeking uniqueness criteria for trigonometric
series representations of functions. He proved sB that when rf(*) is repre-
sented by a trigonometric series convergent for all x, there does not exist a
different series of the same form which likewise converges for every * and
57. Jour. fir Math.,7l,l870, 353-65.
58. Jour. filr Math., 72, 1870, 139-42 : Ges. Abh., 8V83.
97O THE TNSTTLLATTON OF RIGOR rN ANALYS$
repnBents the same rf(*). Another paper6e gave a better proof for this last
result.
The uniqueness theorem he proved can be restated thus: If, for all *,
there is a convergent rePresentation of zero by a trigonometric series, then
the coefficients an and bo are zero. Then Cantor demonstrates in the lBTl
paper that the conclusion still holds even if the convergence is renounced for a
finite number of* values. This paper was the first ofa sequence of papers in
60 the
which Cantor treats the sets of exceptional values of *. He extended
uniqueness result to the case where an infinite set of exceptional values is
permitted. To describe this set he fust defined a pointp to be a limit of a set
of p"it tt S if every interval containing p contains infinitely many points of
.S. Thcn he introduced the notion of the derived set of a set of points. This
derived set consists of the limit points of the original set. There is, then, a
second derived set, that is, the derived set of the derived set, and so forth' If
the zth derived set of a given set is a finite set of points then the given set is
said to be of the zth kind or zth order (or ofthe first species). Cantor's final
answer to the question of whether a function can have two different trigono-
metric series representations in the interval l-o, nf or whether zeto canr
have a non-zero Fourier representation is that if in the interval a trigono-
metric series adds up to zero for all x except those of a point set of the zth
kind (at which one knows nothing more about the series) then all the
cocfficients of the series must be zero. In this 1872 paper Cantor laid the
foundation of the theory of point sets which we shall consider in a later
chapt€r. The problem of uniqueness was pursued by many other men in the
last part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth.sl
For about fifry years after Dirichlet's work it was believed that the
Fourier series of any function continuous in [-2, z] converged to the
function, But Du Bois-Reymond 8e gave an example of a function continuous
in (-2, zr) whose Fourier series did not converge at a Particular point' He
also constructed another continuous function whose Fourier series fails to
convcrge at the Points of an everywhere dense set. Then in 187563 he proved
that if a trigonometric series of the form
," + ; (ao cos nt a 0,, sin z*)
converged to/(r) in l-r, o) and ifl(*) is integrable (in a sense even more
general than Riemann's in that;t(*) can be unbounded on a set of the first
59. Jour. f* Math., ?3, 1871,2944: Ges. Abh.,84-a6.
60. Math. Aa*, 5, 1872, 12!-32: Gcs. Abh.,92-1O2.
61. Dctails can befoundin E. W. Hobson, Thc Tluory of Frttuliots oJ a Rcal Variable,Yol' 2,
656-98.
62. Nactvichtctt K6nie. Gu. thr Wiss. zu Gdtl., 1873, 57 LA2.
63. Abh. dcr Bq*. Akad. der Wiss., 12, 1876' I 17-66.
FOTTRTER SERTES g7r
species) then the series must be the Fourier series for;f(*). He also showed 0a
that any Fourier series of a function that is Riemann integrable can be
integrated term by term even though the series is not uniformly convergent.
Many men then took up the problem already answered in one way by
Dirichlet, namely, to give sufficient conditions that a function f (x) have a
Fourier series which converges to f(x). Several results are classical. Jordan
gave a sufficient condition in terms of the concept of a function of bounded
variation, which he introduced.66 Let f(x) be bounded in fa, bf and let
d : to, !(11 . . .5 2to-11 to : b be a mode of division (partition) of this
interval. Letgoryr,. . .tlr-tltt be the values of;t(*) at these points. Then,
for every partition
(v,*r,- il :f(b) -f(a)

let , denote
lY,*, - Y,l.
To every mode of subdividing [a, D] there is a I. When corresponding to all
possible modes of division of [a, D], the sums t have a least upper bound then
;[is defined to be of bounded variation in fa, bf.
Jordan's sufficient condition states that the Fourier series for the integ-
rable function;f(*) converges to
|va * 0) +/(* - 0)l

at every point for which there is a neighborhood in which;f(x) is of bounded
variation.oo
During the 1860s and 1870s the properties of the Fourier coefficients
were also examined and among the important results obtained were what is
called Parseval's theorem (who stated it under more restricted conditions,
Chap. 29, sec. 3) according to which if;t(x) and [f(x))z are Riemann integ-
rable in [-zr, z] then
*l-,vav dx :2aZ +f 1
t"t + b1),
64. Math. 4na.,22, 1883, 26M8.

65. Con!, fual,92,1881, 228-30 = (Euurcs,4,393-95 and Cours d'analg*,2, lsted., 1882,
ch. v.
66. Cours d'arulysc,2nd cd., 1893, l, 67-72.
972 THE TNSTTLLATION OF RIGOR IN ANALYSIS
and ifl(r) and g(x) and their squares are Riemann integrable then
l" tt*l et*') dx :

I fn
!- + + b,p^)
'l
J-tt
2aoao
)r @*o^
whete a, bn an, and p, are the Fourier coefficients ofl(r) and g(x) respectively.
7. Tlu Status of Analysis

The work of Bolzano, Cauchy, Weierstrass, and others supplied the rigor in
analysis. This work freed the calculus and its extensions from all dependence
upon geometrical notions, motion, and intuitive understandings. From the
outset these researches caused a considerable stir. After a scientific meeting at
which Cauchy presented his theory on the convergence of series Laplace
hastened home and remained there in seclusion until he had examined the
series in his Micaniqw cilesb. L:uckily every one was found to be convergent.
When Weierstrass's work became known through his lectures, the effect was
even more noticeable. The improvements in rigor can be seen by comparing
the first edition ofJord an's Cours d'analgsc (lBB2-87) with the second (1893-
96) and the third edition (3 vols., 1909-15). Many other treatises in-
corporated the new rigor,
The rigorization ofanalysis did not prove to be the end of the investiga-
tion into the foundations. For one thing, practically all of the work presup-
posed the real number system but this subject remained unorganized'
Except for Weierstrass who, as we shall see, considered the problem of the
irrational number during the l840s, all the others did not believe it necessary
to investigate the logical foundations of the number system. It would appear
that even the greatest mathematicians must develop their capacities to
appreciate the need for rigor in stages. The work on the logical foundations of
the real number system was to follow shortly (Chap. 4l).
The discovery that continuous functions need not have derivatives, that
discontinuous functions can be integrated, the new light on discontinuous
functions shed by Dirichlet's and Riemann's work on Fourier series, and the
study of the variety and the extent of the discontinuities of functions made
the mathematicians realize that the rigorous study of functions extends
beyond those used in the calculus and the usual branches of analysis where
the requirement of differentiability usually restricts the class of functions.
The study of functions was continued in the twentieth century and resulted
in the development of a new branch of mathematics known as the theory of
functions ofa real variable (Chap.44).
Like all new movements in mathematics, the rigorization of analysis did
not go unopposed. There was much controversy as to whether the refinements
in analysis should be pursued. The peculiar functions that were introduced
THE STATUS OF ANALYSIS 973
were attacked as curiosities, nonsensical functions, funny functions, and as
mathematical toys perhaps more intricate but of no more consequence than
magic squares. They were also regarded as diseases or part of the morbid
pathology of functions and as having no bearing on the important problems
of pure and applied mathematics. These new functions, violating laws
deemed perfect, were looked upon as signs of anarchy and chaos which
mocked the order and harmony previous generations had sought. The many
hypotheses which now had to be made in order to state a precise theorem
were regarded as pedantic and destructive ofthe elegance of the eighteenth-
century classical analysis, "as it was in paradise," to use Du Bois-Reymond's
phrasing. The new details were resented as obscuring the main ideas.
Poincard, in particular, distrusted this new research. He said:57
Logic sometimes makes monsters. For half a century we have seen a mass
of bizarre functions which appear to be forced to resemble as little as
possible honest functions which serve some purpose. More of continuity,
or less of continuity, more derivatives, and so forth. Indeed from the
point ofview oflogic, these strange functions are the most general; on the
other hand those which one meets without searching for them, and which
follow simple laws appear as a particular case which does not amount to
more than a small corner.
In former times when one invented a new function it was for a
practical purpose; today one invents them purposely to show up defects
in the reasoning of our fathers and one will deduce from them only that.
Charles Hermite said in a letter to Stieltjes, "I turn away with fright and
horror from this lamentable evil offunctions which do not have derivatives."
Another kind of objection was voiced by Du Bois-Reymond.o8 His
concern was that the arithmetization of analysis separated analysis from
geometry and consequently from intuition and physical thinking. It reduced
analysis " to a simple game of symbols where the written signs take on the
arbitrary significance ofthe pieces in a chess or card game."
The issue that provoked the most controversy was the banishment of
divergent series notably by Abel and Cauchy. In a letter to Holmbo6, written
in 1826, Abel says,6e
The divergent series are the invention of the devil, and it is a shame to
base on them any demonstration whatsoever. By using them, one may
draw any conclusion he pleases and that is why these series have produced
so many fallacies and so many paradoxes....I have become prodi-
giously attentive to all this, for with the exception of the geometrical
series, there does not exist in all of mathematics a single infinite series the
67. L'Enseignemert mathimatique, l, 1899, 157-62: (Euares,2, 129-34.

68. ThCorie ginirale des fonctions, 1887,61.
69. (Ewres,2,256.
974 THE INIITILLATION OF RIGOR IN ANALYS$
sum of which has been determined rigorously. In other words, the things
which are most important in mathematics are also those which have the
lcast foundation.
However, Abel showed some concern about whether a good idea had been
overlooked because he continues his letter thus: "That most of these things
a^re oorrect in spite of that is extraordinarily surprising. I am trying to find
a rea$)n for this; it is an exceedingly interesting question." Abel died young
and so nwcr did pursue the matter.
Cauchy, too, had some qualms about ostracizing divergent series. He
says in the introduction of his Cozrs (1821), "I have been forced to admit
diverse propositions which appear somewhat deplorable, for example, that a
divcrgcnt scries cannot be summed." Despite this conclusion Cauchy
continued to use divergent series as in notes appended to the publication in
1827 7o of a prize paper written in l8l5 on water waves. He decided to look
into the question ofwhy divergent series proved so useful and as a matter of
fact he ultimately did come close to recognizing the reason (Chap. a7).
The Frcnch mathematicians accepted Cauchy's banishment of divergent
scries. But thc English and the Germans did not. In England the Cambridge
school defended the use of divergent serics by appeating to the principle of
pcrmanence of form (Chap. 32, sec. l). In connection with divergent series
the principle was first used by Robert Woodhouse (1773-1827). ln Thz
Priwiphs of Analytir Cahtlation (lBO3, p. 3) he points out that in the equation
(6)
*:l+'+12+...
the equality sign has "a more extendd signification " than just numerical
cquality. flence the equation holds whether the series diverges or not.
Peacock, too, applied the principle ofpermanence of forms to operations
with divergent series.?l On page 267 he says, " Thus since for r < l, (6)
above holds, then forr: I wedogetco : I + I + I +....Forr > l we
get a negative number on the left and, because the terms on the right con-
tinually incrcase, a quantity more than co on the right." This Peacock
accepts. The point he tries to make is that the series can represent ll(l - r)
for all r. He says,
If the operations of algebra be considered as general, and the symbols
which are subject to them as unlimited in value, it will be impossible to
avoid the formation of divergent as well as convergent seriesl and if such
series be considered as the results of operations which are definable,
apart from the series themselves, then it will not be very important to
70. MAn. drs saa. Itrangcrs, l, W27,3-?12; see (Euarus,(l), l, 238, 277,2A6.
7l. Rrprlon lfu Racnt Progrcss and Prcsent Stak oJ Certain Branclus of Aaalytk, Brit. Assu. for
Adv. of Science, 3, 1833, 185-352.
THE STATUS OF ANALYS$ 97s
enter into such an examination of the relation of the arithmetical values
of the successive terms as may be necessary to ascertain their convergence
or divergence I for under such circumstances, they must be considered as
equivalent forms representing their generating function, and as possessing
for the purposes of such operations, equivalent proPerties. . . . The
attempt to exclude the use of divergent series in symbolical operations
would necessarily impose a limit upon the universality of algebraic
formulas and operations which is altogether contrary to the spirit of
science. . . . It would necessarily lead to a great and embarrassing
multiplication of cases: it would deprive almost all algebraical oPerations
of much of their certainty and simplicity.
Augustus De Morgan, though much sharper and more aware than

Peacock of the difficulties in divergent series, was nevertheless under the
influence ofthe English school and also impressed by the results obtained by
the use of divergent series despite the difficulties in them. In 1844 he began
an acute and yet confused PaPer on " Divergent Series " 72 with these words,
" I believe it will be generally admitted that the heading of this paper de-
scribes the only subject yet remaining, ofan elementary character, on which
a serious schism exists among mathematicians as to absolute correctne$ or
incorrectness of results." The position De Morgan took he had already
declared in his Diferential and Intcgral Calculus:l3 "The history of algebra
shows us that nothing is more unsound than the rejection of any method
which naturally arises, on account of one or more aPparently valid cases in
which such a method leads to erroneous results. Such cases should indeed
teach caution, but not rejection; if the latter had been preferred to the former,
negative quantities, and still more their square roots, would have been an
effectual bar to the progress of algebra. . . and those immense fields of
analysis over which even the rejectors of divergent series now range without
fear, would have been not so much as discovered, much less cultivated and
settled. . . . The motto which I should adopt against a course which secms to
me calculated to stop the progress of discovery would be contained in a word
and a symbol-remember \/=." He distinguishes between the arithmetic
and algebraic significance of a series. The algebraic significance holds in all
cases. To account for some of the false conclusions obtained with divergent
series he says in the 1844 paper (p. lB7) that integration is an arithmetic and
not an algebraic operation and so could not be aPplied without further
thought to divergent series. But the derivation of
I
| -r
72. Trans, Camb. Philo. Soc.,8, Part II, 1844, 182'203' pub. 1849.
73. London, 1842, p. 566.
976 THE TNSTTLLATToN oF RrcoR rN ANALysrs
by starting with y : | + ry, replacingy on the right by | + rg, and con-

tinuing thus, he accepts because it is algebraic. Likewise from z : I + 2z
one gets z: I + 2 + 4 +.... Hence -l : I + 2 + 4 +...and this is
right. He accepts the entire theory (as of that date) of trigonometric series
but would be willing to reject it if one could give one instance where
I - I + I - I +'.. does not equal l/2 (see Chap. 20).
Many other prominent English mathematicians gave other kinds of
justification for the acceptance of divergent series, some going back to an
argument of Nicholas Bernoulli (Chap. 20, sec. 7) that the series (6) contains
a remainder r* or r'l(l - r'). This must be taken into account (though
they did not indicate how). Others said the sum of a divergent series is
algebraically true but arithmetically false.
Some German mathematicians used the same arguments as Peacock
though they used different words, such as syntactical operations as opposed
to arithmetical operations or literal as opposed to numerical. Martin Ohm?a
said, "An infinite series (leaving aside any question of convergence or diver-
gence) is completely suited to represent a given expression ifone can be sure
of having the correct law of development of the series. Of the oalue of an
infinite series one can speak only if it converges." Arguments in Germany in
favor of the legitimacy of divergent series were advanced for several more
decades.
The defense of the use of divergent series was not nearly so foolish as it
might seem, though many of the arguments given in behalf of the series were,
perhaps, far-fetched. For one thing in the whole of eighteenth-century
analysis the attention to rigor or proof was minimal and this was acceptable
because the results obtained were almost always correct, Hence mathe-
maticians became accustomed to loose procedures and arguments. But,
even more to the point, many of the concepts and operations which had
caused perplexities, such as complex numbers, were shown to be correct
after they were fully understood. Hence mathematicians thought that the
difficulties with divergent series would also be cleared up when a better
understanding was obtained and that divergent series would prove to be
legitimate. Further the operations with divergent series were often bound
up with other little understood operations ofanalysis such as the interchange
of the order of limits, integration over discontinuities of an integrand and
integration over an infinite interval, so that the defenders of divergent series
could maintain that the false conclusions attributed to the use of divergent
series came from other sources of trouble.
One argument which might have been brought up is that when an
analytic function is expressed in some domain by a power series, what
Weierstrass called an element, this series does indeed carry with it the
74. A4fsdlze aur dem Cebiet der hdheren Mathematih (Essays in the Domain of Higher Mathe-
matics, 1823).
BTBLTOCRAPHY 977
" algebraic " or " syntactical " properties of the function and these properties
are carried beyond the domain of convergence of the element. The process
of analytic continuation uses this fact. Actually there was sound mathe-
matical substance in the concept of divergent series which accounted for
their usefulness. But the recognition ofthis substance and the final acceptance
of divergent series had to await a new theory of infinite series (Chap. 47).
Bibliograplry
Abel, N. H.z (Euores complites,2 vols., 1881, Johnson Reprint Corp., 1964.
Minoial publii d I'occasion du centenaire de sa naissance, Jacob Dybwad, 1902.
Letters to and from Abel.
Bolzano, B.: Rein analytischzr Beueis des Lehrsatzes, dass zwischen je zwei. Wcrtlun, db cin
entgegongesetztes Resultat geudhren, uenigstens eine reele Wurzel der Gleichung
Gottheb Hass, Prague, l8l7 : Abh. Kdnigl. Bdhm. Gcs. dn Wiss., (3),5,
liege,
l8l4-17, pub. l8l8 : Ostwald's Klassikn der exakten Wisscnschafttn #153,
1905, 3-43. Not contained in Bolzano's Schriften.
Paradoxes of the l4fnite, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1950. Contains a
historical survey of Bolzano's work.
Schriften,5 vols., Kdniglichen Bdhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,
r930-48.
Boyer, Carl B.:.The Concepts of the Calculus, Dover (reprint), 1949, Chap. 7.
Burkhardt, H.: "Uber den Gebrauch divergenter Reihen in der Zeit von 1750"-
186O," Math. Ann.,70, l9l l, 169-206.
" Trigonometrische Reihe und Integrale," Etugk. dn Math. Wiss.,ll Al2,
819-1354, B. G. Teubner, 190.t-16.
Cantor, Georg: Gesammclte Abhandlungen (1932), Georg Olms (reprint), 1962.
Cauchy, A. L.: CEuares, (2), Gauthier-Villars, 1897-99, Vols. 3 and 4.
Dauben, J. W.: "The Trigonometric Background to Georg Cantor's Theory of
Sets," Archite for History of Exad Sciences, T, 1971, l8l-216.
Dirichlet, P. G. L. : Wnke, 2 vols. Georg Reimer, 1889-97, Chelsea (reprint),
1969.
Du Bois-Reymond, Paul : Zu;ei Abhandlungen iiber unzndliche und tigononutrisclu
Reihen (1871 and 1874), Ostwald's Klassiker ll85; Wilhelm Engelmann,
1913.
Freudenthal, H.: " Did Cauchy Plagiarize Bolzano?," Archiae for History of Exact
7, 197 l, 37 5-92.
Sciznres,
Gibson, G. A.: " On the History of Fourier Series," Pror. Edinburgh Math. Soc., ll,
1892/93, 137-66.
Grattan-Guinness, f.: "Bolzano, Cauchy and the 'New Analysis' ofthe Nineteenth
Century," for Histnry of Exact Scienees, 6, 1970,372-+00,
Archiae
Tlu Deuelopment of the Foundations of Mathematical Analgsis Jrom Eabr a
Riemann, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1970.
Hawkins, Thomas \N.,Jr.: Lebesgue's Theory of Integration: Its Origins aad Dcoclopmcnt,
University of Wisconsin Press, 1970, Chaps. l-3.
978 THE rNsrrLLATroN oF RrGoR rN ANALYSIS
Manhcim, Jerome H.: fhc Gctusis of Point Set Topology, Macmillao, 1964, Chaps.
14.
Pcsin, Ivan N,z Classical and Modaa Inkgration Tluorits, Academic Press, 1970,
Chap. 1.
Pria$hcim, A. : " Irrationalzahlen und Konvergenz unendlichen Prozxe," Eruyk.
da Math. Wiss.,lL3, 47-l+7, B. G. Teubner, 1898-1904.
Reiff, R. : Gcschirhrc d.a urundlirhzn Rzihcrr, H. Lauppsche Buchhandlung, I 889 ;
Martin Siindig (reprint), 1969.
Ricmann, Berahard: Gesammcltt ndlumatisclu Wcrlu,2nd'. ed. (1902), Dover
(reprint), 1953.
Schl.<inger, L.: "Uber Gauss'Arbeiten zur Funktionenlehre," Nachrichtzn Kdnig.
Gas. dcr Wiss. zu Gott.,l9l2, Beiheft, l-43. Also in Gauss's Wcrke, l0z, 77 tr.
Schocofica, Arthur M. : ." Die Entwicklung der Lehre von den Punktmannig-
faltigLciten," Jahrcs. dcr Dcut. Math.-Vacin, 82, 1899, l-250.
Singh, A. N.: "The Thcory and Construction of Non-Differentiable Functions,"
in E. W. Hobson : Squcing thc Circh and Otlu Mowgraplu, Chelsea (reprint),
1953.
Smith, David E.z A Souu Book in Matlumatics, Dover (reprint), 1959, Vol. l,
286-91, Vol. 2,635-37.
Stolz, O.: "8. Bolzanoe Bcdeutung in der Geschichte der Infinitesimalrechnung,"
Math. Arm., t8, 1881, 255-79.
Wcicrrtrass, Kartlt Mztfunatinlu Werkc, 7 vols., Mayer und MiiLller, 1894-1927.
Young, Grace C. : " On Infinite Derivativa," Quart. Jour. of Math., 47 , 1916,
t27-7s.
4r
The Foundations of the Real and
Transfinite Numbers
God made the integersl all else is the work of man.
l. Introduction
One of the most surprising facts in the history of mathematics is that the
logical foundation of the real number system was not erected until the late
nineteenth century. Up to that time not even the simplest properties of
positive and negative rational numbers and irrational numbers were logcally
established, nor were these numbers dehned. Even the logical foundation
of complex numbers had not been long in existence (Chap. 32, sec. l), and
that foundation presupposed the real number system. In view of the exten-
sive development of algebra and analysis, all of which utilized the real
numbers, the failure to consider the precise structure and properties of the
real numbers shows how illogically mathematics progresses. The intuitive
understanding of these numbers seemed adequate and mathematicians iryere
content to operate on this basis.
The rigorization of analysis forced the realization that the lack of
clarity in the number system itself had to be remedied. For example, Bol-
zano's proof (Chap. 40, sec. 2) that a continuous function that is negative
for x : a and positive for * : b is zero for some value of .r between a and b
floundered at a critical point because he lacked an adequate understanding
of the structure of the real number system. The closer study of limits also
showed the need to understand the real number system, for rational numberr
can have an irrational limit and conversely. Cauchy's inability to prove the
sufficiency of his criterion for the convergence of a sequence likewise resulted
from his lack of understanding of the structure of the number system. The
study of discontinuities of functions representable by Fourier series revealed
the same deficiency. It was Weierstrass who first pointed out that to establish
carefully the properties of continuous functions he needed the theory of the
arithmetic continuum.
979
9BO FOUNDATIONS OF REAL AND TRANSFINITE NUMBERS
Another motivation to erect the foundations of the number system was

the desire to secure the truth of mathematics. One consequence of the
creation of non-Euclidean geometry was that geometry had lost its status
as truth (Chap. 36, sec. B), but it still seemed that the mathematics built
on the ordinary arithmetic must be unquestionable reality in some philo-
sophical sense . As far back as I B I 7, in his letter to Olbers, Gauss t had
distinguished arithmetic from geometry in that only the former was purely
a priori. In his letter to Bessel of April 9, 1830,2 he repeats the assertion that
only the laws of arithmetic are necessary and true. However, the foundation
of the number system that would dispel any doubts about the truth ol
arithmetic and ofthe algebra and analysis built on that base was lacking.
It is very much worth noting that before the mathematicians appreci-
ated that the number system itself must be analyzed, the problem that had
seemed most pertinent was to build the foundations of algebra,, and 1n
particular to account for the f;act that one could use letters to represent real
and complex numbers and yet operate with letters by means of properties
accepted as true for the positive integers. To Peacock, De Morgan, and
Duncan Gregory, algebra in the early nineteenth century was an ingenious
but also an ingenuous complex of manipulatory schemes with some rhyme
but very little reason; it seemed to them that the crux ofthe current confusion
lay in the inadequate foundation for algebra. We have already seen how
these men resolved this problem (Chap. 32, sec. I ). The late nineteenth-
century men realized that they must probe deeper on behalf of analysis and
clarify the structure of the entire real number system. As a by-product they
would also secure the logical structure ofalgebra, lor it was already intuitively
clear that the various types of numbers possessed the same formal properties.
Hence if they could establish these properties on a sound foundation, they
could apply them to letters that stood for any of these numbers.
2. Algebraic and Transcendental Numbers

A step in the direction of an improved understanding of irrational numbers
was the mid-nineteenth-century work on algebraic and transcendental
irrationals. The distinction between algebraic and transcendental irrationals
had been made in the eighteenth century (Chap. 25, sec. l). The interest
in this distinction was heightened by the nineteenth-century work on the
solution of equations, because this work revealed that not all algebraic
irrationals could be obtained by algebraic operations on rational numbers.
Moreover, the problem of determining whether e and r were algebraic or
transcendental continued to attract mathematicians.
t. Werke,8, 177.
2. Werke , 8, 201.
ALGEBRAIC AND TRANSCENDENTAL NUMBERS 98I
Up to 1844, the question of whether there were any transcendental
irrationals was open. In that year Liouvilles showed that any number of
the form
a, d6 a-
--:- -L ----L r ----:- r...
lo , lo2! , lo3! ,
where the a, are arbitrary integers from 0 to 9, is transcendental.

To prove this, Liouville first proved some theorems on the approxima-
tion of algebraic irrationals by rational numbers. By definition (Chap. 25,
sec. l) an algebraic number is any number, real or complex, that satisfies
an algebraic equation
aoxo I arxo-7 *. -. * an : 0
where the a, are integers. A root is said to be an algebraic number ofdegree

n if it satisfies an equation of the zth degree but of no lower degree. Some
algebraic numbers are rational; these are of degree one. Liouville proved
that il plq is any approximation to an algebraic irrational x of degree r,
with p and q integral, then there exists a positive number M such that
lolM
l'- .l' ,""
This means that any rational approximation to an algebraic irrational of
degree z by any plq must be less accurate than Mlq". Alternatively we may
say that ifx is an algebraic irrational ol degree n, there is a positive number
M such that the inequality
l.-21
lclq'
.y
has no solutions : z and hence for y, <n. Then x
in integers p and q for p
is transcendentalif for a fixed M and for every positive integer p the inequality
has a solution ?lq.By showing that his irrationals satisfy this last criterion,
Liouville proved they were transcendental.
The next big step in the recognition ofspecific transcendental numbers
was Hermite's proof in l$73a that e is transcendental. After obtaining this
result, Hermite wrote to Carl Wilhelm Borchardt (1817-80), ..I do not
dare to attempt to show the transcendence of z. If others undertake it, no
one will be happier than I about their success, but believe me, my dear
friend, this cannot fail to cost them some effort."
That zr is transcendental had already been suspected by Legendre
(Chap. 25, sec. l). Ferdinand Lindemann (1852-1939) proved this in
3. Conp. Rend., 18, l8+4,910-ll, and Jour. de Math., (l), 16, 185t, 133-42.
4. Comp. Rend.,77, 1873, 18-24, ?4-79, 226-33, 285-93 = (Ewres,2, 150-81.
982 FoUNDATIoNS oF REAL AND TRANSFINITE NUMBERS
18825 by a method that does not differ essentially from Hermite's. Linde-
mann established that lf xy x2,. , ., x,t are distinct algebraic numbers, real
or complex, and pr, pr,. . . , p,L are algebraic numbers and not all zero, then
the sum
lrfr+pzfa+...+pnf"
cannot be 0. If we take z : 2, ?, : l, and.r, : 0, we see that r*1 cannot
be algebraic for an *, that is algebraic and nonzero. Since x1 can be I, , is
transccndental. Now it was known that rt" + I : 0; hence the number izr
cannot be algebraic. Then zr is not, because i is, and the product of two
algebraic numbers is algebraic. The proof that zr is transcendental disposed
of the last point in the famous construction problems of geometry, flor all
constructible numbers are algebraic.
One mystery about a fundamental constant remains- Euler's constant
(Chap. 20, sec. 4)
":,1,I(r
*|* +;-bc,)'
which is approximately 0.577216 and which plays an important role in
analysis, notably in the study of the gamma and zeta functions, is not known
to be rational or irrational.
3. Tlu Tluory of Inational Numbers

By the latter part of the nineteenth century the question of the logical
structure of the real nurriber system was faced squarely. The irrational
numbers were considered to be the main difficulty' However, the develop-
ment of the meaning and properties of irrational numbers presuPPoses the
establishment of the rational number system. The various contributors to
the theory of irrational numbers either assumed that the rational numbers
were so assuredly known that no foundation for them was needed or gave
some hastily improvised scheme.
Curiously enough, the erection of a theory of irrationals required not
much more than a new point of view. Euclid in Book V of the Elemcnts had
treated incommensurable ratios of magnitudes and had defined the equality
and inequality of such ratios. His definition of equality (Chap. 4' sec. 5)
amounted to dividing the rational numbers mln into two classes, those for
which mln is less than the incommensurable ratio alb of the magnitudes a
and i and those for which mln is greater. It is true that Euclid's logic was
deficient because he never defined an incommensurable ratio. Moreover,
Euclid's development olthe theory of proportion, the equality of two incom-
it. Math. Ann., 20, 1882, 213-25.

THE THEORY OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS 983
mensurable ratios, was applicable only to geometry. Nevertheless, he did

have the essential idea that could have been used sooner to define irrational
numbers. Actually Dedekind did make use of Euclid's work and acknowl-
edged this debt;6 Weierstrass too may have been guided by Euclid's theory.
However, hindsight is easier than foresight. The long delay in taking
advantage of some relormulation of Euclid's ideas is readily accounted for.
Negative numbers had to be fully accepted so that the complete rational
number system would be available. Moreover, the need for a theory of
irrationals had to be felt, and this happened only when the arithmetization
of analysis had gotten well under way.
In two papers, read belore the Royal Irish Academy in 1833 and 1835 and
published as "Algebra as the Science of Pure Time," William R. Hamilton
offered the first treatment of irrational numbers.T He based his notion of
all the numbers, rationals and irrationals, on time, an unsatislactory basis
for mathematics (though regarded by many, following Kant, as a basic
intuition). After presenting a theory of rational numbers he introduced the
idea of partitioning the rationals into two classes (the idea will be described
more fully in connection with Dedekind's work) and defined an irrational
number as such a partition. He did not complete the work.
Apart lrom this unfinished work all pre-Weierstrassian introductions
of irrationals used the notion that an irrational is the limit of an infinite
sequence of rationals, But the limit, if irrational, does-not exist logically
until irrationals are defined. Cantors points out that this logical error
escaped notice lor some time because the error did not lead to subsequent
difficulties. Weierstrass, in lectures at Berlin beginning in 1859, recognized
the need for and gave a theory of irrational numtrers. A publication by
H. Kossak, Die Elemente der Arithmetik (1872), claimed to present this theory
but Weierstrass disowned it.
In 1869 Charles M6ray (1835-1911), an apostle of the arithmetization
of mathematics and the French counterpart ol Weierstrass, gave a definition
ol the irrationals based on the rationals.e Georg Cantor also gave a theory,
which he needed to clarify the ideas on point sets that he used in his l87l
work on Fourier series. This was followed one year later by the theory of
(Heinrich) Eduard Heine, which appeared in the Journal Jilr Mathcmatik,to
and one by Dedekind, which he published in Stetigkeit und irrationah Zahlen.rL
The various theories of irrational numbers are in essence very much
alike; we shall therefore confine ourselves to giving some indication of the
6. Essays, p. 40.
7. Trans. Roual ltish Academy, 17 , 1A37, 293-422 : Math. Papers, 3, 3-96.
8. Math. Ann.,2l, 1883, p.566.
9. Reuue des Sociitis Saoanls,4, 1869, 280-89.
10. Jour. fir Marh., ?4, 1872, 172-88.
ll. Continuity and Irrational Numbers, 1872 : Werke,3,314-34.
984 FoUNDATIoNS oF REAL AND TRANSFINITE NUMBERS
12 starts with the rational numbers.

theories of Cantor and Dedekind. Cantor
In his lBB3 paper,ls wherein he gives more details about his theory of
irrational numbers, he says (p. 565) that it is not necessary to enter into
the rational numbers because this had been done by Hermann Grassmann
in his Lehrburh dcr Arithmetik (186l) and J. H. T. Muller (1797-1862) in
his Lchrbuch dcr allgemeinen Arithmetik (1855). Actually these presentations
did not prove definitive. Cantor introduced a new class of numbers, the
real numbers, which contain rational real and irrational real numbers. He
builds the real numbers on the rationals by starting with any sequence of
rationals that obeys the condition that for any given e, all the members
except a finite number differ from each other by less than €, or that
)im (ao*, - ao) :0
for arbitrary rz. Such a sequence he calls a fundamental sequence. Each
such sequence is, by definition, a real number that we can denote by 6'
Two such sequences (a,) and (D,) are the same real number if and only if
lo" - b,l approaches zero as v becomes infinite.
For such sequences three possibilities present themselves. Given any
arbitrary rational number, the members of the sequence for sufficiently
large v are all smaller in absolute value than the given numberl or, from a
given z on, the members are all larger than some definite positive rational
member p; or, from a given r on, the members are all smaller than some
definite negative rational number -p. In the first case 6 : 0; in the second
6i 0; in the third 6 < 0.
If (a") and (al") arc two fundamental sequences, denoted by b and b' ,
then one can show that (a, + ai) and (a"'a') are fundamental sequences.
These define b + b' and D .D'. Moreover, if b 4 0, then (ai/a,) is also a
fundamental sequence that defines 6'/0.
The rational real numbers are included in the above definition of real
numbers, because, lor example, any sequence (a,) with a, equal to the
rational number a for each v defines the rational real number a'
Now one can define the equality and inequality ofany two real numbers.
Indeed D : b', b > b', or b < D', according as b - D' equals 0, is greater
than 0 or is less than 0.
The next theorem is crucial. Cantor proves that if (0,) is any sequence
of real numbers (rational or irrational), and if lim (b,t, - D,) : 0 for
arbitrary pr, then there is a unique real number D, determined by a funda-
mental sequence (ar) ol rational a, such that
l'* ', : ''

12. Math. Ann.,5, 1872, 123 32 : Gu. Abh.' 92-102.
13. Malh. Ann.,21, 1883, 545-91 : Ges. Abh., 165-204.
THE THEORY OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS 985
That is, the formation of fundamental sequences of real numbers does not
create the need for still newer types of numbers that can serve as limits of
these fundamental sequences, because the already existing real numbers
suffice to provide the limits. In other words, from the standpoint of providing
limits lor fundamental sequences (or what amounts to the same thing,
sequences which satisfy Cauchy's criterion ofconvergence), the real numbers
are a complete system.
Dedekind's theory of irrational numbers, presented in his book ol lB72
mentioned above, stems from ideas he had in lB5B. At that time he had to
give lectures on the calculus and realized that the real number system had
no logical foundation. To prove that a monotonically increasing quantity
that is bounded approaches a limit he, like the other authors, had to resort to
geometrical evidence. (He says that this is still the way to do it in the first
treatment of the calculus, especially if one does not wish to lose much time.)
Moreover, many basic arithmetic theorems were not proven. He gives as
an example the fact that {2.\/3 : \/6 had not yet been strictly demon-
strated.
He then states that he presupposes the development of the rational
numbers, which he discusses briefly. To approach the irrational numbers
he asks first what is meant by geometrical continuity. Contemporary and
earlier thinkers-for example, Bolzano-believed that continuity meant the
existence ol at least one other number between any two, the property now
known as denseness. But the rational numbers in themselves form a dense
set. Hence denseness is not continuity.
Dedekind obtained the suggestion for the definition of an irrational
number by noting that in every division of the line into two classes of points
such that every point in one class is to the left of each point in the second,
there is one and onlg one point that produces the division. This lact makes the
line continuous. For the line it is an axiom. He carried this idea over to
the number system. Let us consider, Dedekind says, any division of the
rational numbers into two classes such that any number in the first class is
less than any number in the second. Such a division ofthe rational numbers
he calls a cut. Ifthe classes are denoted by l, and Ar, then the cut is denoted
by (Ar, Ar). From some cuts, namely, those determined by a rational
number, there is either a largest number in.4, or a smallest number in lr.
Conversely every cut in the rationals in which there is a largest number in
the first class or a smallest in the second is determined by a rational number.
But there are cuts that are not determined by rational numbers. If we
put into the first class all negative rational numbers and all positive ones
whose squares are less than 2, and put into the second class all the other
rationals, then this cut is not determined by a rational number. To each
such cut "we create a new irrational member a which is fully defined by
this cut; we will say that the number a corresPonds to this cut or that it
986 FOUNDATIONS OF REAL AND TRANSFINITE NUMBERS
brings about this cut." Hence there corresponds to each cut one and only
one either rational or irrational number.
Dedekind's language in introducing irrational numbers leaves a little
to be desired. He introduces the irrational a as corresponding to the cut and
defined by the cut. But he is not too clear about where a comes from. He
should say that the irrational number cr is no more than the cut. In fact
Heinrich Weber told Dedekind this, and in a letter of IBBB Dedekind replied
that the irrational number a is not the cut itself but is something distinct,
which corresponds to the cut and which brings about the cut. Likewise,
while the rational numbers generate cuts, they are not the same as the cuts.
He says we have the mental power to create such concePts'
He then defines when one cut (Ar, Ar) is less than or greater than
another cut (Br, Br). After having defined inequality, he points out that the
real numbers possess three provable properties: (l) If c > p and p > y,
then a > y. (2) lf d and y are two different real numbers, then there is an
inflnite number of different numbers which lie between a and y. (3) If cr is
any real number, then the real numbers are divided into two classes l, and
Ar, each of which contains an infinite number of members, and each member
of ,4, is less than a and each member of l, is greater than c. The number a
itself can be assigned to either class. The class of real numbers now Possesses
conlirutily, which he expresses thus: If the set of all real numbers is divided
into two classes l, and A2 such that each member of l, is less than all
members of 12, then there exists one and only one number o which brings
about this division.
He defines next the operations with real numbers. Addition ol the
cuts (,41, Ar) and, (Br, Br) is defined thus: If c is any rational number, then
we put it in the class Cr if there is a number arin A, and a number b, in B,
such that ar + bL > c. All other rational numbers are put in the class C'r.
This pair of classes C, and C, forms a cut (Cr, C2) because every member ol
C, is less than every member of Cr. The cut (Cr, C'r) is the sum of (,4r, Ar) and
(Br, Br). The other operations, he says, are defined analogously. He can
now establish properties such as the associative and commutative properties
of addition and multiplication. Though Dedekind's theory of irrational
numbers, with minor modifications such as the one indicated above, is
logically satisfactory, Cantor criticized it because cuts do not appear
naturally in analysis.
There are other approaches to the theory of irrational numbers beyond
those already mentioned or described. For example, Wallis in 1696 had
identified rational numbers and periodic decimal numbers. Otto Stolz
(1842-1905), in his Vorlesungen ilber allgemeine Arithmetik,ta showed that every
irrational number can be represented as a nonperiodic decimal and tl.ris
fact can be used as a defining Property.
14. 1886, l, 109-19.
TIIE THEORY OF RATIONAL NUMBERII 987
It is apparent from these various approaches that the logical definition

of the irrational number is rather sophisticated. Logically an irrational
number is not just a single symbol or a pair of symbols, such as a ratio of
two integers, but an infinite collection, such as Cantor's fundamental
sequence or Dedekind's cut. The irrational number, logically defined, is an
intellectual monster, and we can see why the Greeks and so many later
generations of mathematicians found such numbers difficult to grasp.
Advances in mathematics are not greeted with universal approbation.
Hermann Hankel, himsellthe creator of a logical theory of rational numbers,
objected to the theories of irrational numbers.ls " Every attempt to treat
the irrational numbers formally and without the concept of [geometric]
magnitude must lead to the most abstruse and troublesome artificialities,
which, even ilthey can be carried through with complete rigor, as we have
every right to doubt, do not have a higher scientific value."
4. The Theory of Rational Numbers

The next step in the erection of foundations for the number system was the
definition and deduction oI'the properties of the rational numbers. As
already noted, one or two efforts in this direction preceded the work on
irrational numbers. Most of the workers on the rational numbers assumed
that the nature and properties ol the ordinary integers were known and
that the problem was to establish logically the negative numbers and
fractions.
The first such effort was made by Martin Ohm (1792-1872), a professor
in Berlin and brother of the physicist, in his Versuch cincs oollkommcn consc-
quenten Syslems der Mathematik (Study of a Complete Consistent System of
Mathematics, 1822). Then \ryeierstrass, in lectures given during the lB60s,
derived the rational numbers from the natural numbers by introducing the
positive rationals as couples of natural numbers, the negative integers as
another type of couple of natural numbers, and the negative rationals as
couples ol negative integers. This idea was utilized independently by Peano,
and so we shall present it in more detail later in connection with his work.
Weierstrass did not feel the need to clarify the logic of the integers. Actualiy
his theory of rational numbers was not free of difficulties. However, in his
lectures from 1859 on, he did affirm correctly that once the whole numbers
were admitted there was no need for further axioms to build up the real
numbers.
The key problem in building up the rational number system was the
founding of the ordinary integers by some process and the establishment of
the properties of the integers. Among those who worked on the theory of the
15. Theorie der complexen Zahlensysten, 1867, p. 4647.

9BB FOUNDATIONS OF REAL AND TRANSFINITE NUMBERS
integers, a few believed that the whole numbers were so fundamental that
no logical analysis of them could be made. This position was taken by
Kronecker, who was motivated by philosophical considerations into which
we shall enter more deeply later. Kronecker too wished to arithmetize
analysis, that is, to found analysis on the integers; but he thought one could
not go beyond recognition of knowledge of the integers. Ol these man has a
fundamental intuition. " God made the integers," he said, " all else is the
work of man."
Dedekind gave a theory of the integers in his Was sind und was sollen die
Zahlen.L6 Though published in IBBB, the work dates from 1872 to 1878. He
used set-theoretic ideas, which by this time Cantor had already advanced,
and which were to assume great importance. Nevertheless, Dedekind's
approach was so complicated that it was not accorded much attention.
The approach to the integers that best suited the axiomatizing proclivi-
ties of the late nineteenth century was to introduce them entirely by a set
of axioms. Using results obtained by Dedekind in the above-mentioned
work, Giuseppe Peano (lB5B-1932) first accomplished this in his Arithmetices
Principia Nooa Methodo Exposita (lBBg).1? Since Peano's approach is very
widely used we shall review it.
Peano used a great deal of symbolism because he wished to sharpen the
reasoning. Thus e means to belong tol = mst" implies; tr[6 means the class
ofnatural numbers; and a* denotes the next natural number after a. Peano
used this symbolism in his presentatron of all of mathematics, notably in his
Formulario mathematieo (5 vols., 1895-1908). He used it also in his lectures,
and the students rebelled. He tried to satisfy them by passing all of them,
but that did not work, and he was obliged to resign his professorship at the
University of Turin.
Though Peano's work influenced the further development ol symbolic
logic and the later movement of Frege and Russell to build mathematics
on logic, his work must be distinguished from that ol Frege and Russell.
Peano did zal wish to build mathematics on logic. To him, logic was the
servant of mathematics.
Peano started with the undefined concepts (cf. Chap.42, sec. 2) of
"set," "natural numbersr" "successorr" and " belong to." His five axioms
for the natural numbers are:
(1) I is a natural number.
(2) I is not the successor ofany other natural number.
(3) Each natural number a has a successor.
(4) Ilthe successors ofa and D are equal then so are a and. b.
16. The Nature and Meaning of Numbers : Werkc, 3, 335-91'
17. Opere scelte, 2, 20-55, and Riaista di Matematica, l, 1891, 87-102, 256-57 : Oiere
scelte, 3, 8V109.
THE THEORY OF RATIONAL NUMBERS g8g
(5) If a set S of natural numbers contains I and if when S contains any

number a it also contains the successor of a, then S contains all the
natural numbers.
This last axiom is the axiom of mathematical induction.

Peano also adopted the reflexive, symmetric, and transitive axioms for
equality. That is, a:a;il a: b, then b: a; and if a:b and b: c,
then a : c. He defined addition by the statements that for each pair of
natural numbers a and b there is a unique sum such that
* | : a*
a
a+(b+):(a+b)+.
Likewise, multiplication was defined by the statement that to each pair of
natural numbers a and, b there is a unique product such that
a'l : a
a.b*:(a.b)+a.
He then established all the familiar properties of natural numbers.
From the natural numbers and their properties it is straightforward to
define and establish the properties of the negative whole numbers and the
rational numbers. One can first define the positive and negative integers
as a new class of numbers, each an ordered pair of natural numbers. Thus
(a, 6) where a and b are natural numbers is an integer. The intuitive meaning
of (a, b) is a - b. Hence when a > b, the couple represents the usual positive
integer, and when a < b, the couple represents the usual negative integer.
Suitable definitions of the operations of addition and multiplication lead
to the usual properties of the positive and negative integers.
Given the integers, one introduces the rational numbers as ordered
couples of integers. Thus ifl and B are integers, the ordered couple (1, B)
is a rational number. Intuitively (A, B) is AlB. Again suitable definitions of
the operations of addition and multiplication of the couples lead to the
usual properties of the rational numbers.
Thus, once the logical approach to the natural numbers was attained,
the problem of building up the foundations of the real number system was
completed. As we have already noted, generally the men who worked on
the theory ofirrationals assumed that the rational numbers were so thoroughly
understood that they could be taken for granted, or made only a minor
gesture toward clarifying them. After Hamilton had grounded the complex
numbers on the real numbers, and alter the irrationals were defined in
terms of the rational numbers, the logic of this last class was finally created.
The historical order was essentially the reverse of the logical order required
to build up the complex number system.
99O FOUNDATTONS OF REAL AND TRANSFINITE NUMBERS
5. Otlur Approaches to the Real Number Sgstem

The essence of the approaches to the logical foundations of the real number
system thus far described is to obtain the integers and their Properties in
some manner and, with these in hand, then to derive the negative numbers,
thc fractions, and finally the irrational numbers. The logical base of this
approach is some series of assertions concerning the natural numbers only,
for example, Peano's axioms. All the other numbers are constructed. Hilbert
called the above approach the genetic method (he may not have known
Peano's axioms at this time but he knew other approaches to the natural
numbers). He grants that the genetic method may have pedagogical or
heuristic value but, he says, it is logically more secure to apply the axiomatic
method to the entire real number system. Before we state his reasons, let
us look at his axioms.l8
He introduces the undefined term, number, denoted by a, b, c,. . . ,
and then givts the following axioms:
I. Axiotns of Conncction
Ir. From the number a and the number 6 there arises through addition a
definite number c; in symbols
a*b:c or c:a*b.
Ir. Ifa and D are given numbers, then there exists one and only one number
* and also one and only one number y so that
a+x:b and yta:b.
Is. There is a definite number, denoted by 0, so that for each a
a*0:a and 01-a:a.
I.. From the number a and the number 6 there arises by another method,
by multiplication, a definite number e; in symbols
ab:c or c:ab.
I". If a and D are arbitrary given numbers and 4 not 0, then there exists
one and only one number ,, and also one and only one number y such
that
att: b and ga:b.
16. There exists a definite number, denoted by l, such that for each a we
have
a.l : a and l.a: a.
18. Jahres. der Deut. Math.-Verein-,8,1899, 180-84; this article is notin Hilbert's Gesammelte
Abhandlungen. It is in his Grundlagen der Geometriz, Tth ed., Appendix 6.
OTHER APPROACIIES TO THE REAL NUMBER SYSTEM 99r
lI. Axioms of Calculation
llr.at(b+c):(a+b)+c.
llr.atb:b+a.
Il". a(bc) : (ab)c.
lln. a(b * c) : ab + ac.
II.. (a * b)c : ac + bc.
Il5. ab : ba.
lll. Axiom.c of Order
IIIr. Il a and D are any two different numbers, then one of these is always
greater than the other; the latter is said to be smaller; in symbols
a>b and b<a.
IlI2. If a > D and b > c then a > c.
IIIs. Ifa > 6 then it is always true that
a+c>b+c and c*a>c*b.
llln. lf a> b and c > 0 then ac > bcandca > cb.
lY . Axioms of Continuity
IVr. (Axiom of Archimedes) lf a > 0 and D > 0 are two arbitrary numbers
then it is always possible to add a to itself a sufficient number of times
so that
a+a+...*a>b.
IVr. (Axiom of Completeness) It is not possible to adjoin to the system of
numbers any collection of things so that in the combined collection the
preceding axioms are satisfied; that is, briefly put, the numbers form a
system of objects which cannot be enlarged with the preceding axioms
continuing to hold.
Hilbert points out that these axioms are not independent; some can
be deduced from the others. He then affirms that the objections against the
existence olinfinite sets (sec. 6) are not valid for the above conception ofthe
real numbers. For, he says, we do not have to think about the collection of
all possible laws in accordance with which the elements of a fundamental
sequence (Cantor's sequences of rational numbers) can be formed. We have
but to consider a closed system of axioms and conclusions that can be
deduced from them by a finite number of logical steps. He does point out
that it is necessary to prove the consistency ol this set of axioms, but when
this is done the objects defined by it, the real numbers, exist in the mathema-
tical sense. Hilbert was not aware at this time of the difficulty of proving
the consistency of axioms for real numbers.
992 FOUNDATTONS OF REAL AND TRANSFTNTTE NUMBERS
To Hilbert's claim that his axiomatic method is superior to the genetic

method, Bertrand Russell replied that the former has the advantage of
theft over honest toil. It assumes at once what can be built up from a much
smaller set of axioms by deductive arguments,
As in the case of almost every significant advance in mathematics, the
creation of the theory of real numbers met with opposition. Du Bois-Rey-
mond, whom we have already cited as opposing the arithmetization of
analysis, said in his Thiorie ginirale des Jonetinns of 1887, ls
No doubt with help from so-called axioms, from conventions, from

philosophic propositions contributed ad hoc, frorn unintelligible extensions
of originally clear concepts, a system of arithmetic can be constructed
which resembles in every way the one obtained from the concePt of
magnitude, in order thus to isolate the computational mathematics, as
it were, by a cordon of dogmas and defensive definitions. . . . But in this
way one can also invent other arithmetic systems' Ordinary arithmetic
is just the one which corresponds to the concept of linear magnitude.
Despite attacks such as this, the completion of the work on the real
numbers seemed to mathematicians to resolve all the logical problems the
subject had faced. Arithmetic, algebra, and analysis were by far the most
extensive part of mathematics and this part was now securely grounded.
6. The Concept of an l4finite Set

The rigorization of analysis had revealed the need to understand the struc-
ture of sets of real numbers. To treat this problern Cantor had already
introduced (Chap. 40, sec. 6) some notions about infinite sets ol points,
especially the sets ofthe first species. Cantor decided that the study ofinfinite
sets was so important that he undertook to study infinite sets as such. This
study, he expected, would enable him to distinguish clearly the different
infinite sets of discontinuities.
The central difficulty in the theory of sets is the very concept of an
infinite set. Such sets had naturally come to the attention of mathematicians
and philosophers from Greek times onward, and their very nature and
seemingly contradictory properties had thwarted any progress in under-
standing them. Zeno's paradoxes are perhaps the first indication of the
difficulties. Neither the infinite divisibility of the straight line nor the line
as an infinite set of discrete points seemed to permit rational conclusions
about motion. Aristotle considered infinite sets, such as the set of whole
numbers, and denied the existence ol an infinite set of objects as a fixed
entity. For him, sets could be only potentially infinite (Chap. 3, sec. l0).
19. Page 62, French ed. of Die allgemeine Funktionentheorie, 1882.
THE CONCEPT OF AN INFINITE SET 993
Figure 4l.l
Proclus, the commentator on Euclid, noted that since a diameter of a

circle divides it into halves and since there is an infinite number of diameters,
there must be twice that number of halves. This seems to be a contradiction
to many, Proclus says, but he resolves it by saying that one cannot speak of
an actual infinity of diameters or parts ofa circle. One can speak only ofa
larger and larger number of diameters or parts of a circle. In other words,
Proclus accepted Aristotle's concept ofa potential infinity but not an actual
infinity. This avoids the problem of a double infinity equaling an infinity.
Throughout the Middle Ages philosophers took one side or the other
on the question of whether there can be an actual infinite collection of
objects. It was noted that the points of two concentric circles could be put
into one-to-one correspondence with each other by associating points on a
common radius. Yet one circumference was longer than the other.
Galileo struggled with infinite sets and rejected them because they were
not amenable to reason. In his Trpo New Sciences (pp. lB-40 of the English
translation), he notes that the points of two unequal lengths lB and CD
(Fig. al.1) can be put into one-to-one correspondence with each other and
so presumably contain the same number of points. He also notes that the
whole numbers can be put into one-to-one correspondence with their
squares merely by assigning each number to its square. But this leads to
diflerent "amounts" of infinities, which Galileo says cannot be. All infinite
quantities are the same and cannot be compared.
Gauss, in his letter to Schumacher ofJuly 12, 183l,2o says, "I protest
against the use of an infinite quantity as an actual entity; this is never
allowed in mathematics. The infinite is only a manner of speaking, in which
one properly speaks of limits to which certain ratios can come as near :rs
desired, while others are permitted to increase without bound." Cauchy,
Iike others before him, denied the existence of infinite sets because the fact
that a part can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the whole seemed
contradictory to him.
The polemics on the various problems involving sets were endless and
2O. Werke, 8, 216.

994 FOUNDATTONS OF REAL AND TRANSFTNTTE NUMBERS
involved metaphysical and even theological arguments. The attitude of

most mathematicians toward this problem was to ignore what they could
not solve. On the whole they also avoided the explicit recognition ofactually
infinite sets, though they used infinite series, for example, and the real
number system. They would speak of points of a line and yet avoid saying
that the line is composed of an infinite number of points. This avoidance
of troublesome problems was hypocritical, but it did suffice to build classical
analysis. However, when the nineteenth century faced the problem of
instituting rigor in analysis, it could no longer side-step many questions about
infinite sets.
7. Tlu Foundation of the Tluory of Sets

Bolzano, in his Paradoxcs oJ the ltfinitc (1851 ), which was published three
years after his death, was the first to take positive steps toward a definitive
theory ofsets. He defended the existence of actually infinite sets and stressed
the notion of equivalence of two sets, by which he meant what was later
called the one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the two sets.
This notion of equivalence applied to infinite sets as well as finite sets. He
noted that in the case of infinite sets a part or subset could be equivalent to
the whole and insisted that this must be accepted. Thus the real numbers
between 0 and 5 can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the real
numbers between 0 and 12 through the formula !: l2xl5, despite the
fact that the second set of numbers contains the first set. Numbers could be
assigned to infinite sets and there would be different transfinite numbers for
different infinite sets, though Bolzano's assignment of transfinite numbers
was incorrect according to the later theory of Cantor,
Bolzano's work on the infinite was more philosophical than mathemat-
ical and did not make sufficiently clear the notion of what was called later
the power of a set or the cardinal number of a set. He, too, encountered
properties that appeared paradoxical to him, and these he cites in his book.
He decided that transfinite numbers were not needed to found the calculus
and so did not pursue them farther.
The creator of the theory of sets is Georg Cantor (1845-19lB) who was
born in Russia of Danish-Jewish parentage but moved to Germany with his
parents. His father urged him to study engineering and Cantor entered the
University of Berlin in 1863 with that intention. There he came under the
influence of Weierstrass and turned to pure mathematics. He became
Priaatdozent at Halle in 1869 and professor in 1879. When he was twenty-nine
he published his first revolutionary paper on the theory ofinfinite sets in the
Journal fiir Mathematik. Although some of its propositions were deemed
faulty by the older mathematicians, its overall originality and brilliance
THE FOUNDATTON OF THE TIIEORY OF SETS 995
attracted attention. He continued to publish papers on the theory of sets

and on transfinite numbers until 1897.
Cantor's work which resolved age-old problems and reversed much
previous thought, could hardly be expected to receive immediate acceptance.
His ideas on transfinite ordinal and cardinal numbers aroused the hostility
of the powerful Leopold Kronecker, who attacked Cantor's ideas savagely
over more than a decade. At one time Cantor suffered a nervous breakdown,
but resumed work in lBB7. Even though Kronecker died in 1891, his attacks
left mathematicians suspicious of Cantor's work.
Cantor's theory of sets is spread over many papers and so we shall not
attempt to indicate the specific papers in which each of his notions and
theorems appear. These papers are in the Mathetnatischc Annalcn and the
Journal Jilr Matlumatik from lB74 on.21 By a set Cantor meant a collection
of definite and separate objects which can be entertained by the mind and
to which we can decide whether or not a given object belongs. He says that
those who argue for only potentially infinite sets are wrong, and he refutes
the earlier arguments of mathematicians and philosophers against actually
infinite sets. For Cantor a set is infinite if it can be put into one-to-one
correspondence with part of itself. Some of his set-theoretic notions, such as
limit point of a set, derived set, and set of the first species, were defined and
used in a paper on trigonometric series;22 these we have already described
in the preceding chapter (sec. 6). A set is closed if it contains all its limit
points. It is open ifevery point is an interior point, that is, ifeach point may
be enclosed in an interval that contains only points of the set, A set is perfect
if each point is a limit point and the set is closed. He also defined the union
and intersection of sets. Though Cantor was primarily concerned with
sets of points on a line or sets of real numbers, he did extend these notions
of set theory to sets of points in z-dimensional Euclidean space.
He sought next to distinguish infinite sets as to "size" and, like Bolzano,
decided that one-to-one correspondence should be the basic principle. Two
sets that can be put into one-to-one correspondence are equivalent or have
the same power. (Later the term " power " became " cardinal number.")
Two sets may be unequal in power. If of two sets of objects M and N, N
can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset of Mbut M carrrrot
be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset of .trr', the power of M
is larger than that of .ly'.
Sets of numbers were of course the most important, and so Cantor
illustrates his notion of equivalence or Power with such sets. He introduces
the term " enumerable" for any set that can be put into one-to-one corre-
spondence with the positive integers. This is the smallest infinite set. Then
21. Ges. Abh., 115-356.

22. Math. Aan.,5, 1872, 122-32 : Ges. Abh.,92-102.
996 FouNDATIoNs oF REAL AND TRANSFTNTTE NUMBERS
Cantor proved that the set of rational numbers is enumerable. He gave one
proof in 1874.23 However, his second proof24 is the one now most widely
used and we shall describe it.
The rational numbers are arranged thus :
1234
I I lT
t2 3
,2 ,
\/
t2
55
I
(4
It will be noted that all those in any one diagonal have the same sum of
numerator and denominator. Now one starts with l/l and follows the arrows
assigning the number I to l/1, 2 to 211,3 to ll2, 4 to 113, and so on. Every
rational number will be reached at some stage and to each one a finite
integer will be assigned. Hence the above set of rational numbers (in which
some appear many times) is in one-to-one correspondence with the integers.
Then if duplicates are eliminated the set of rational numbers will still be
infinite and necessarily enumerable since this is the smallest infinite set.
Still more surprising is Cantor's proof in the lB74 paper just referred
to that the set of all algebraic numbers, that is, the set ol all numbers that
are solutions of all algebraic equations
asxn I alxn-L + "'+ an : 0,
where the at are integers, is also enumerable.

To prove this, he assigns to any algebraic equation ofdegree z the height
.l[ defined by
N:n- I + laol + larl +...+ lo"l,
where the a, are the coefficients of the equation. The height N is an integer.
To each .ly' there corresponds only a finite number of algebraic equations
and hence only a finite number of algebraic numbers, say f(l[). Thus
d(l) : I ; 6(2) : 2; 4(3) :4. He starts with 1[ : I and labels the corre-
sponding algebraic numbers from I to z1; the algebraic numbers that have
23. Jour. fitr Math.,77, 187+,258-62 :

Ges. Abh., l15-18.
24. Math, Ann.,46, 1895, 481-512 :
Ges. Abh.,283-356, pp. 29,1-95 in particular.
THE FOUNDATTON OF THE THEORY OF SETS gg7
height 2 are labeled from z1 + 1 to n2; and so forth. Because each algebraic
number will be reached and be assigned to one and only one integer, the set
of algebraic numbers is enumerable.
In his correspondence with Dedekind in 1873, Cantor posed the
question of whether the set of real numbers can be put into one-to-one
correspondence with the integers, and some weeks later he answered in the
negative. He gave two proofs. The first (in the lB74 article just referred to)
is more complicated than the second,2s which is the one most often used
today. It also has the advantage, as Cantor pointed out, ofbeing independent
of technical considerations about irrational numbers.
Cantor's second proof that the real numbers are uncountable (non-
enumerable) begins by assuming that the real numbers between 0 and I are
countable (enumerable) . Let us write each as a decimal and let us agree
that a number such as l/2 will be written as .4999. . .. If these real numbers
are countable, then we can assign each one to an integer z, thus:
I +-+ 0. a, a.s,z atz .. .
2 <-+ 0. a21 azz azs .. .
3<-+0. a", asz aaa ...
Now let us define a real number between 0 and I thus: Let b : 0.btb2h. . .,
where 6" : 9 if atr: I and b* : I il axx * l. This real number differs
from any of those in the above correspondence. However, this was supposed
to contain all the real numbers between 0 and l. Hence there is a contra-
diction.
Since the real numbers are uncountable and the algebraic numbers
are countable, there must be transcendental irrationals. This is Cantor's
nonconstructive existence proof, which should be compared with Liouville's
actual construction of transcendental irrationals (sec. 2).
In 1874 Cantor occupied himself with the equivalence of the points of
a line and the points of -Rn (z-dimensional space) and sought to prove that
a one-to-one correspondence between these two sets was impossible. Three
years later he proved that there is such a correspondence. ffe wrote to
Dedekind,26 " I see it but I do not believe it."
The idea2? used to set up this one-to-one correspondence can be
exhibited readily if we set up such a correspondence between the points
of the unit square and the points of the segment (0, I ) . Let (.r, y) be a point
of the unit square and z a point of the unit interval. Let r and y be repre-
sented by infinite decimals so that in a finite decimal terminating in zero,
we replace the 0 by an infinite sequence of 9's. We now break up ,r and g
25. Jahres. der Deut. Math.-Verein., l, 1890191,75-78 : Ces. Abh.,278-Bl.

26. Briefwechsel Cantor-Dedekind, p. 34.
27. Jour. far Math.,84, 1878,242-58 : Ges. Abh., ll9-33.
gg8 FOUNDATTONS OF REAL AND TRANSFTNTTE NUMBERS
into groups of decimals, each group ending with the first nonzero digit
encountered. Thus
x:.300203046"'
9: '01 6 07 8 09 ".'
Form
z:.30l 00260307MB 609 "'
by choosing as the grouPs in z the first grouP from x, then the first from y,
and so forth. If two r's or y's differ in some digit then the corresponding z's
will differ. Hence to each (r, y) there is a unique z. Given a z, one breaks
up its decimal representation into the groups just described and forms the
x and y by reversing the above Process. Again two different z's will yield
two diflerent pairs (x, y) so that to each z there is a unique (x, y). The
one-to-one correspondence just described is not continuous; roughly stated,
this means that neighboring z-points do not necessarily go into neighboring
(.r, y)-points, nor conversely.
Du Bois-Reymond objected to this proof.28 "It appears repugnant to
common sense. The fact is that this is simply the conclusion of a type of
reasoning which allows the intervention of idealistic fictions, wherein one
lets them play the role of genuine quantities even though they are not even
limis of representations of quantities. This is where the paradox resides."
8. Transfinite Cardinals and Ordinals

Having demonstrated the existence of sets with the same power and different
poyers, Cantor pursued this concept of the power of a set and introduced
a theory of cardinal and ordinal numbers in which the transfinite cardinals
and ordinals are the striking elements. Cantor developed this work in a
series of papers in the Mathcmatische Annalen from lB79 to 1884, all under the
title " Uber unendliche lineare Punktmannichfaltigkeiten " (On Infinite
Linear Aggregates of Points). Then he wrote two definitive papers in 1895
and lB97 in the same journal.2e
In the fiflth paper on linear aggregates 30 Cantor opens with the obser-
vation,
The description of my investigations in the theory of aggregates has
reached a stage where their continuation has become dependent on a
generalization of real positive integers beyond the Present limits; a
28. Page 167, French ed. (1887) of his Dic allgemeine Funktionentheorie (1882).
29. Math. Ann., 46, 1895, 481-512, and 49, 1897, 207-46 : Ges. Abh., 282-351; an
English translation of these two papers may be found in Georg Cantor, Coilibutions lo lhe
Founding ofa Theory of Transjnile Numbers, Dover (rcprint), no date.
30. 1883, Ges. Abh., 165.
TRANSFTNTTE CARDTNALS AND ORDTNALS 999
generalization which takes a direction in which, as far as I know, nobody

has yet looked.
I depend on this generalization of the number concept to such an
extent that without it I could not freely take even small steps forward in
the theory of sets. I hope that this situation justifies or, if necessary,
excuses the introduction of seemingly strange ideas into my arguments.
In fact the purpose is to generalize or extend the series of real integers
beyond infinity. Daring as this might appear, I express not only the hope
but also the firm conviction that in due course this generalization will be
acknowledged as a quite simple, appropriate, and natural step. Still I
am well aware that by adopting such a procedure I am putting myself in
opposition to widespread views regarding infinity in mathematics and to
current opinions on the nature of number.
He points out that his theory of infinite or transfinite numbers is
distinct from the concept ofinfinity wherein one speaks ofa variable becom-
ing infinitely small or infinitely large. Two sets which are in one-to-one
correspondence have the same power or cardinal number. For finite sets
the cardinal number is the usual number of objects in the set. For infinite
sets new cardinal numbers are introduced. The cardinal number of the set
of whole numbers he denoted by l{0. Since the real numbers cannot be Put
into one-to-one correspondence with the whole numbers' the set of real
numbers must have another cardinal number which is denoted by c, the
first letter of continuum. Just as in the case of the concept of power, if two
sets.Mand .ly' are such that .ly'can be put into one-to-one corresPondence with
a subset of M bfi M cannot be put into one-to-one corresPondence with a
subset of 1[, the cardinal number of M is greater than that of .ly'. Then
,>No.
To obtain a cardinal number larger than a given one,31 one considers
any set M which the second cardinal number represents and considers the
set .ly' of all the subsets of M. Among the subsets ol M are the individual
elements of M, all pairs of elements of M, and' so on. Now it is certainly
possible to set up a one-to-one correspondence between M and a subset of
.ly' because one subset of .try' consists of all the individual members of i[ (each
regarded as a set and as a member of ir'), and these members are the very
members of M. lt is not possible to set up a one-to-one correspondence
between M and, all the members of iy'. For suPpose such a one-to-one corre-
spondence were set up. Let mbe any member of M and' let us consider all
the m's such that the subsets (members) of .ly' that are associated with m's
of M do not contain the n to which they correspond under this supPosed
one-to-one correspondence. Let q be the set of all these rr's. 4 is of course a
member of N. Cantor affirms that z7 is not included in the supposed one-to-one
correspondence. For if 4 corresponded to some m of M, and q contained rz,
31. Cantor, Ges. Abh.,278-80.

rooo FOUNDATIONS OF REAL AND TRANSFINITE NUMBERS
that would be a contradiction of the very definition of4. On the other hand
if a did not contain z, it should because z1 was by definition the set ol all
m's which were not contained in the corresponding subsets of N. Hence the
assumption that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the elements
m of M and of N, which consists of all the subsets of M, leads to a contra-
diction. Then the cardinal number of the set consisting of all the subsets of
a given set is larger than that of the given set.
Cantor defined the sum of two cardinal numbers as the cardinal number
of the set that is the union ofthe (disjoined) sets represented by the summands.
Cantor also defined the product of any two cardinal numbers. Given two
cardinal numbers a and B, one takes a set M represented by c and a set -lf
represented by B and forms the pairs of elements (m, n) where m is any
element of M andn of iy'. Then the cardinal number of the set of all possible
pairs is the product ofc and P.
Powers of cardinal numbers are also defined. If we have a set M of m
objects and a set .l[ of z objects, Cantor defines the set m', and this amounts
to the set of permutations o[ zn objects n at a tirrre with repetitions of the m
objecs permitted. Thus if m : 3 and ra : 2 and we have mv m2, ms, the
permutations are .
fltflt frzflz filsflt
ntinz fnzfi\ nilnz

flltflls fflzffls flama.
Cantor defines the cardinal number of this number of permutations to be

a, where c is the cardinal number of M and p that of 1[. He then proves that
2No : c,
Cantor calls attention to the fact that his theory of cardinal numbers
applies in particular to finite cardinals, and so he has given " the most natural,
shortest, and most rigorous foundation for the theory of finite numbers."
The next concept is that ol ordinal number' He has already found the
need for this concept in his introduction of successive derived sets of a given
point set. He now introduces it abstractly. A set is simply ordered if any two
elements have a definite order so that given m1 and m2 either rn, precedes
m2 or m2 precedes m1; the notation is z1 ( m2 or m2 < m1. Further if
rn1 1 tt2 and m, < n., then simple order also implies mt I msl that is, the
order relationship is transitive. An ordinal number ol an ordered set M is
the order type of the order in the set. Two ordered sets are similar il there
is a one-to-one correspondence between them and it when m, corresponds
to n, and m2 to n2 and m1 < mr, then frt I fr2. Two similar sets have the same
type or ordinal number. As examples of ordered sets, wc may use any finite
set of numbers in any given order. For a finite set, no matter what the order
is, the ordinal number is the same and the symbol fior it can be taken to be
TRANSFINITE CARDINALS AND ORDINALS I OOI
the cardinal number of the set of numbers in the set. The ordinal number
of the set of positive integers in their natural order is denoted by ar. On the
other hand, the set of positive integers in decreasing order, that is
...r4r3r2, I
is denoted by *<..r. The set of positive and negative integers and zero in the
usual order has the ordinal number *a * a.
Then Cantor defines the addition and multiplication of ordinal numbers.
The sum of two ordinal numbers is the ordinal number of the first ordered
set plus the ordinal number of the second ordered set taken in that specific
order. Thus the set ofpositive integers followed by the first five integers, that
is,
1,2,3,.'-,1,2,3,4,5,
has the ordinal number ar * 5. AIso the equality and inequality of ordinal
numbers is defined in a rather obvious way.
And now he introduces the full set of transfinite ordinals, partly for
their own value and partly to define precisely higher transfinite cardinal
numbers. To introduce these new ordinals he restricts the simply ordered
sets to well-ordered sets.3z A set is well-ordered if it has a first element in
the ordering and if every subset has a first element. There is a hierarchy of
ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers. In the first class, denoted by 21,
are the finite ordinals
1,2,3,..,.
In the second class, denoted by Zr, are the ordinals
a,a|1,a*2,..,,2a,2u * 1,.'.,3a,3a * 1,..-, @2,a3,..., tD@,
Each of these ordinals is the ordinal of a set whose cardinal number is No.
The set of ordinals in Z, has a cardinal number. The set is not enumer-
able and so Cantor introduces a new cardinal number Nr as the cardinal
number of the set Zr. N, is then shown to be the next cardinal after No.
The ordinals of the third class, denoted by Zs, arc
O, O + l,A + 2,..., O + O,'...

These are the ordinal numbers of well-ordered sets, each of which has l{,
elements. However, the set of ordinals Z" has rnore than N, elements, and
Cantor denotes the cardinal number of the set Z"by l\2. This hierarchy of
ordinals and cardinals can be continued indefinitely.
32. Math. 4nn.,21,1883, 545-86 : Ges. Abh., 165-204.

r oo2 FOUNDATIONS OF REAL AND TRANSFINITE NUMBERS
Now Cantor had shown that given any set' it is always possible to create
a new set, the set ofsubsets ofthe given set, whose cardinal
number is larger
than that of the given set. If No is the given set, then the cardinal number
of the set of subsits is 2xo. Cantor had proved that 2xo
: c, where c is the
cardinal number ol the continuum. On the other hand he introduced N'
through the ordinal numbers and proved that N, is the next cardinal after
No. Ii"rrc" Nr < c, but the question as to whether Nr: c' known as the
hypothesis, Cantor, despite arduous efforts, could not answer'
"Jrr,it,rrr-
Inalistofo,rtst"rrdirrgproblemsPresentedatthelnternationalCongressof
Mathematicians in 1900, Hilbert included this (Chap' 43, sec' 5; see
also
Chap. 51, sec.8).
'Forgerr.ralsets.7l1and,lfitispossiblet}.atMcannotbeputintoone-to-
orre co.rJpondence with any subset of 'trf and -1y' cannot be put into one-to-one
with a subset of M' In this case' though M and N have
"o*oporrd.t "e :
cardinal numbers c and B, say, it is not Possible to say that F o' " < F'
numbers are not comparable' For well-
ot a > p.That is, the two cardinal
ordered sets cantor was able to prove that this situation cannot arise. It
seemed paradoxical that there should be non-well-ordered sets whose
could
cardinal numbers cannot be compared' But this problem, too' Cantor
not solve.
Ernst Zermelo (lB7l-1953) took up the problem ofwhat to do about
the
comparison of the cardinal numbers of sets that are not well-ordered, In
and in l9083a gave a second proof, that every set can be
190+g" he proved,
well-orderid (in some rearrangement) ' To make the proof he had to use
what is now known as the axiom of choice (Zermelo's axiom)' which states
that given any collection of nonempty, disjoined sets, it is possible to choose
3rrstJt . from each set and so make up a new set' The axiom of
-.-b..
""hoi"",
the well-ordering theorem, and the fact that any two sets may be
p' either
compared as to size (that is, il their cardinal numbers are c and
a :- F, @ < B, or a > p) are equivalent principles'
g. Ttu Status of Ser TheorY bY 1900

noted'
Cantor's theory of sets was a bold step in a domain that, as already
had been co.rsidered intermittently since Greek times' It demanded strict
application of purely rational arguments, and it affirmed the existence ol
ininite of higher and higher power, which are entirely beyond the
sets
grasp of human intuition. It would be singular if these ideas' far
more
ievoiutionary than most others previously introduced, had not met with
of this development were rein-
opposition. ihe do,rbts as to the soundness
33. Math. Ann.,59, 1904, 5l'1-16.

34, Math. Ant.,65, 1908, 107-28.
THE STATUS OF SET TIIEORY BY I9OO rooS
forced by questions raised by Cantor himself and by others. In letters to

Dedekind ofJuly 28 and August 28, 1899,35 Cantor asked whether the set
ofall cardinal numbers is itselfa set, because if it is it would have a cardinal
number larger than any other cardinal. He thought he answered this in the
negative by distinguishing between consistent and inconsistent sets. However,
in lB97 Cesare Burali-Forti (186l-1931) pointed out that the sequence ol
all ordinal numbers, which is well-ordered, should have the greatest of all
ordinal numbers as its ordinal number.38 Then this ordinal number is
greater than a// the ordinal numbers. (Cantor had already noted this
difficulty in 1895.) These and other unresolved problems, called paradoxes,
were beginning to be noted by the end ofthe nineteenth century.
The opposition did make itself heard. Kronecker, as we have already
observed, opposed Cantor's ideas almost from the start. Felix Klein was by
no means in sympathy with them. Poincards? remarked critically, "But it
has happened that we have encountered certain paradoxes, certain apparent
contradictions which would have pleased Zeno ol Elea and the school of
Megara. . . . I think for my part, and I am not the only one, that the
important point is never to introduce objects that one cannot define com-
pletely in a finite number of words." He refers to set theory as an interesting
" pathological case." He also predicted (in the same article) that " Later
generations will regard [Cantor's]
Mengenlehre as a disease from which one
has recovered." Hermann Weyl spoke of Cantor's hierarchy of alephs as a
fog on a fog.
However, many prominent mathematicians were impressed by the uses
to which the new theory had already been put. At the first International
Congress of Mathematicians in Zurich ( 1897), Adolf Hurwitz and Hadamard
indicated important applications ol the theory of transfinite numbers to
analysis. Additional applications were soon made in the theory of measure
(Chap. 44) and topology (Chap. 50). Hilbert spread Cantor's ideas in
Germany, and in 1926 38 said, " No one shall expel us from the paradise
which Cantor created for us." He praised Cantor's transfinite arithmetic as
" the most astonishing product of mathematical thought, one of the most
beautiful realizations of human activity in the domain of the purely intel-
ligiblg." ss Bertrand Russell described Cantor's work as " probably the
greatest of which the age can boast."
35. Ges. Abh., 445-48.
36. Rendiconti del Circolo Malemdtico di Palermo, I l, 1897, 154-64 and 260.
37. Pruceedings of lhe Fourth Inlernat. Cong. of Mathemalicians, Romc, 1908, 167-82; Bill.
des Sci, ltloth., (2), 32, 1908, 168-90 : extract in CEuarcs,5, 19'23.
38- tuIath- Ann.,95, 1926, l7O : Grundlagcn der Geometric, Tth ed., 1930, 274-
39. Molh. Ann.,95, 1926, 167 : Grundlagcn der Geometrie, Tth ed., 1930, 270. Thc article
"Uber das Unendliche," from which the above quotations wcre taken, appears also in
French in Acla Math.,48, 1926, 9l-l22.lt is not includcd in Hilbert's Gcsamneltc Abhand'
lungcn.
roo4 FoUNDATIONS OF REAL AND TRANSFINITE NUMBERS
Bibliography
Becker, Oskar: Grundlagen dcr Malhemalik in geschichtlicher Entuicklung, Verlag Karl
Alber, 1954, pp. 217-316.
Boyer, Carl B.: A History oJ Mathematics, John Wiley and Sons, 1968, Chap. 25.
Cantor, Georg: Gesammeltc Abhandlungcn, 1932, Georg Olms (reprint), 1962.
......'........._ : Contributions lo tlu Founding of the Theory of Transfnite Numbers
, Dover
(reprint), no date. This contains an English translation of Cantor's two
key papers of 1895 and 1897 and a very helpful introduction by P. E. B.
Jourdain.
Cavailles, Jean: Philosophie malhimalique, Hermann, 1962. Also contains the
Cantor-Dedekind correspondence translated into French.
Dedckind, R.: Essays on thc Theory of Numbers, Dover (reprint), 1963. Contains an
English translation of Dedekind's " Stetigkeit und irrationale Zahlen" and.
" Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen." Both essays are in Dedekind's
We*e, 3, 31't-34 and 335-91.
Fraenlel, Abraham A.: " Georg Cantor," Jahres. der Deut. Math.-Verern., 39, 1930,
189-266. A historical account of Cantor's work.
Helmholtz, Hermann von:' Counting and, Measuring, D. Van Nostrand, 1930. English
translation of Helmholtz's Ztihlen und ll[essen, Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen,
3,356-91.
Ivlanheim, Jerome H. : The Genesis of Point Set Topologg, Macmillan, 1964, pp.
76-l10.
Meschkowski, Herbert: Wags of Thought of Great Mathematicians, Hold'en-Day,
1964, pp. 9l-104.
Eaolution of Mathematical Thoughl, Holden-Day, 1965, Chaps. '1-5.
Problcmc des Unendliclun: lil'erk und Leben Georg Cantors, F. Vieweg und
.....................-:
Sohn, 1967.
Noether, E. and J. Cavaillts: Briefuechsel Canlor-Dedekind, Hermann, 1937.
Peano G. : Opere sccltc, 3 vols., Edizioni Cremonese, 1957-59.
Schoenflies, Arthur M. : Die Entwickelung der Mengenlehre und ihrc Anwendungen, two
pars, B. G. Teubner, 1908, 1913.
Smith, David Eugene: A Source Book in Mathematics, Dover (reprint), 1959, Vol. I'
pP. 35-45,99-106.
Stammler, Gerhard: Der Zahlbegrif seit Gauss, Georg Olms, 1965.
42
The Foundations of Geometry
Geometry is nothing if it be not rigorous . . . . The methods
of Euclid are, by almost universal consent, unexceptional in
point of rigor. n. l. s. surrH (1873)
It has been customary when Euclid, considered as a textbook,

is attacked for his verbosity or his obscurity or his pedantry,
to defend him on the ground that his logical excellence is
transcendent, and affords an invaluable training to the
youthful powers of reasoning. This claim, however, vanishes
on a close inspection. His definitions do not always de6ne,
his axioms are not always indemonstrable, his demonstrations
require many axioms of which he is quite unconscious. A
valid proof retains its demonstrative force when no figure is
drawn, but very many of Euclid's earlier proofs fail before
this test. . . . The value of his work as a masterpiece of logic
has been very grossly exaggerated.
BERTRAND nussru (1902)
l. The Defects in Euclid

Criticism of Euclid's definitions and axioms (Chap. 4, sec. l0) dates back to
the earliest known commentators, Pappus and Proclus. When the Europeans
were first introduced to Euclid during the Renaissance, they too noted
flaws. Jacques Peletier ( I 51 7-82), in his 1z Euclidis Elemenla Geomctrica
Demonstrationum (1557), criticized Euclid's use of superposition to prove
theorems on congruence. Even the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said
in 1844 that he was surprised that mathematicians attacked Euclid's parallel
postulate rather than the axiom that figures which coincide are equal. He
argued that coincident figures are automatically identical or equal and hence
no axiom is needed, or coincidence is something entirely empirical, which
belongs not to pure intuition (Anschauung) but to external sensuous experience.
Moreover, the axiom presupposes the mobility of figures; but that which is
movable in space is matter, and hence outside geometry. In the nineteenth
century it was generally recognized that the method of superposition either
roo5
r006 TITE FOUNDATIONS OF GEOMETRY
Figurc 42.1 C
rested on unstatd axioms or should be replaced by another approach to

congruence,
Some critics did not like as an axiom the statement that all right angles
are equal and sought to prove it, of course on the basis of the other axioms.
Christophorus Clavius (1537-1612), an editor of Euclid's work, noted the
absence of an axiom guaranteeing the existence of a fourth proportional
to three given magnitudes (Chap. 4, sec. 5). Rightly Leibniz commented
that Euclid relied upon intuition when he asserted (Book l, Proposition l)
that two circlcs, each of which passes through the center of the other, have
a point in common. Euclid assumed, in other words, that a circle is some
L.ind of continuous structure and so must have a point where it is cut by
another circle.
The shortcomings in Euclid's presentation ol geometry were also noted
by Gauss. In a letter to Wolfgang Bolyai of March 6, 1832,1 Gauss pointed
out that to speak of a part of a plane inside a triangle calls for the proper
foundation. He also says,3'In a complete development such words as 'be-
tween' must be founded on clear concepts, which can be done, but which I
have not found anywhere." Gauss made additional criticisms of the definition
ofthe straight line2 and of the definition of the plane as a surface in which
a line joining any two points of the plane must lie.3
It is well known that many " proofs " of false results can be made because
Euclid's axioms do not dictate where certain points must lie in relation to
othen. There is, fior example, the " proof" that every triangle is isoceles.
One constructs the angle bisector at I oftriangle ABC and the perpendicular
bisector of side BC (Fig. a2.l). If these two lines are parallel, the angle
bisector is perpendicular to BC and the triangle is isosceles. We suppose,
then, that the lines meet at O,say, and we shall still "show" that the triangle
is isosceles. We now draw the perpendiculars OF to AB ar,'d OE to AC.
l. Wakc, 8,222.
2. Wahc, 8, 196.
3. Wakc,8, 193-95 and 200.
FOUNDATIONS OF PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY r oo7
Figure 42.2 o
Then the triangles marked I are congruent, and OF : OE. The triangles
marked III are also congruent, and OB: OC. Consequently the triangles
marked II are congruent, and FB : EC. From the triangles marked I we
have AF : lE. Then AB : AC and the triangle is isosceles.
One might question the position of the point O, and indeed one can
show that it must lie outside the triangle on the circumscribed circle. If,
however, one draws Figure 42.2, it can again be " proved " that triangle
IBC is isosceles. The flaw is that of the two points E and F one must lie
inside and the other outside of the respective sides of the triangle. But this
means that we must be able to determine the correct position of F with
respect to A and B and .E'with respect to A and C before starting the proof.
Of course one should not rely upon drawing a correct figure to determine
the locations of E and 4 but this was precisely what Euclid and the mathe-
maticians up to 1800 did. Euclidean geometry was supposed to have oflered
accurate proofs of theorems suggested intuitively by figures, but actually it
offered intuitive proofs of accurately drawn figures.
Though criticisms of the logical structure of Euclid's Elcmmts were
launched almost from the time it was written, they were not widely known
or the defects were regarded as minor. The Elements was generally taken to
be the model of rigor. However, the work on non-Euclidean geometry made
mathematicians aware of the full extent of the deficiencies in Euclid's
structure, for in carrying out proofs they had to be especially critical of
what they were accepting. The recognition of the many deficiencies finally
obliged the mathematicians to undertake the reconstruction of the founda-
tions of Euclidean geometry and of other geometries that contained the same
weaknesses. This activity became extensive in the last third ofthe nineteenth
century,
2. Contributions t0 the Foundations of Projutiae Geometry

In the 1870s the work on projective geometry in relation to the metric
geometries revealed that projective geometry is the fundamental one (Chap.
3B). Perhaps for this reason, the foundational work began with projective
r oo8 THE !'OUNDATIONS OF GEOMETRY
geometry. However, nearly all of the writers were equally concerned to

build up the metric geometries, either on the basis of projective geometry
or independently. Hence the books and papers of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries dealing with the foundations of geometry cannot
be segregated under distinct topics.
The work on non-Euclidean geometry had brought the realization that
geometries are man-made constructions bearing upon physical space but
not necessarily exact idealizations of it. This fact implied that several major
changes had to be incorporated in any axiomatic approach to geometry.
These were recognized and stressed by Moritz Pasch (1843-1930), who was
the first to make major contributions to the foundations of geometry. His
Vorbsungcn iiber neucre Geometric (lst ed., 1882; 2nd ed., revised by Max
Dehn, 1926) is a groundbreaking work.
Pasch noted that Euclid's common notions, such as point and line,
were really not defined, Defining a point as that which has no parts means
little, for what is the meaning of parts ? In fact, Pasch pointed out, as had
Aristotle and a few later mathematicians such as Peacock and Boole, that
some concepts must be undefined or else either the process of definition would
be unending or mathematics would rest on physical concepts. Once some
undefined concepts are selected, others can be defined in terms ol these.
Thus in geometry point, line, plane (Pasch also used, in his first edition,
congruence of line segments) might be chosen as the undefined terms. The
choice is not unique. Since there are undefined terms, the question arises as
to what properties of these concepts can be used to make prools about them.
The answer given by Pasch is that the axioms make assertions about the
undefined terms and these are the only assertions about them that we may
use, As Gergonne put it as far back as l8l8,a the undefined concepts are
defined implicitly by the axioms.
As for the axioms, Pasch continues, though some may be suggested by
experience, once the set is selected it must be possible to execute all proofs
without further reference to experience or to the physical meaning of the
concepts. Moreover, the axioms are by no means self-evident truths but just
assumptions designed to yield the theorems of any particular geometry. He
says in his Vorlesungen (2nd ed., p. 90),
. . . ifgeometry is to become a genuine deductive science, it is essential that

the way in which inferences are made should be altogether independent
of lhe meaning of the geometrical concepts, and also of the diagrams;
all that need be considered are the relationships between the geometrical
concepts asserted by the propositions and definitions. In the course of
deduction it is both advisable and useful to bear in mind the meaning of
the geometrical concepts used, but this is iz no zoay essential; in fact it is
4. Ann. de Math.,9, l8l8/19, l.

FOUNDATIONS OF PROJECTI\/E CEOMETRY roo9
precisely when this becomes necessary that a gap occurs in the deduction
and (when it is not possible to supply the deficiency by modifying the
reasoning) we are forced to admit the inadequacy of the propositions
invoked as the means of Proof.
Pasch did believe that the concepts and axioms should bear on experience,
but logically this was irrelevant.
In his Vorlesungen Pasch gave axioms for projective geometry, but
many of the axioms or their analogues were equally important for the
axiomatization of Euclidean and the non-Euclidean geometries when built
up as independent subjects. Thus he was first to give a set of axioms for the
order of points on a line (or the concept of betweenness). Such axioms must
also be incorporated in a complete set for any one ol the metric geometries.
We shhll see below what the order axioms amount to.
His method of building projective geometry was to add the point, line,
and plane at infinity to the proper points, Iines, and planes. Then he intro-
duced coordinates (on a geometric basis), using the throw construction of
von Staudt and Klein (Chap. 35, sec. 3), and finally the algebraic rePresen-
tation of projective transformations. The non-Euclidean and Euclidean
geometries were introduced as special cases on a geometric basis by distin-
guishing the proper and improper lines and Points A la Felix Klein.
A more satislactory approach to projective geomery was given by
Peano.s This was followed by the work of Mario Pieri (186G-1904)' "I
Principii della geometria di posizione";6 Federigo Enriques (l87l-1946,
Lezioni di geometria proiettiaa, l89B) ; Eliakim Hastings Moore (1862-1932);7
Friedrich H. Schirr (1856-1932) ;8 Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947,
The Axioms of Projedioe Geometry); e and Oswald Veblen ( 1880-1960) and
John W. Young (1879-1932).10 The last two men gave a completely inde-
pendent set. The classic text, Veblen and Young's Projcctiae Geometry (2 vols.,
l9l0 and l91B), carries out Klein's organization of geometry by starting
with projective geometry on a strict axiomatic basis and then specializing
this geometry by choosing different absolute quadrics (Chap. 38, sec. 3)
to obtain Euclidean and the several non-Euclidean geometries. Their
axioms are general enough to include geometries with a finite number of
points, geometries with only rational points, and geometries with complex
points.
One more point about many ol the axiomatic systems for projective
5. Riuista di Matematica : Retue de Mathimaliques, 4, 1894' 5l-90 : OPerc sulte, 3,

I l5-57.
6. Memorie della Reale Accademia dclle Scienze di Torino, (2), 48, 1899, l-62.
7. Amer. Math. Soc. Trans.,3, 1902, 142-58.
8. Math. Ann,,55, 1902, 265-92.
9. Cambridge University Press, 1906.
10. Amer. Jour. of Math.,30, 1908, 347-78.
IOIO TIIE FOUNDATIONS OF GEOMETRY
geometry and those we shall look at in a moment for Euclidean geometry

is worth noting. Some of Euclid's axioms are existence axioms (Chap. 4,
sec. 3). To guarantee the logical existence of figures, the Greeks used con-
struction with line and circle. The nineteenth-century foundational work
revised the notion of existence, partly to supply deficiencies in Euclid's
handling of this topic, and partly to broaden the notion of existence so that
Euclidean geometry could include points, lines, and angles not necessarily
constructible with line and circle, We shall see what the new kind of existence
axioms amount to in the systems we are about to examine.
3. The Foundations of Euclidean Geometry

In his 1 Prircipii di geometria (lBB9), Giuseppe Peano gave a set of axioms
for Euclidean geometry. He, too, stressed that the basic elements are unde-
fined. He laid down the principle that there should be as few undefined
concepts as possible and he used point, segment, and motion. The inclusion
of motion seems somewhat surprising in view of the criticism of Euclid's
use of superposition; however, the basic objection is not to the concept of
motion but to the lack of a proper axiomatic basis if it is to be used. A similar
set was given by Peano's pupil Pierill who adopted point and motion as
undefined concepts. Another set, using line, segment, and congruence of
segments as undefined elements, was given by Giuseppe Veronese ( 185,[-
l9l7) in his Fondamenti di geometria (lB9l).
The system of axioms for Euclidean geometry that seems simplest in
its concepts and statements, hews closest to Euclid's, and has gained most
lavor is due to Hilbert, who did not know the work o[the Italians. He gave
the first version in his Grundlagen der Geometrie (1899) but revised the set
many times. The following account is taken from the seventh (1930) edition
ofthis book. In his use ofundefined concepts and the fact that their properties
are specified solely by the axioms, Hilbert follows Pasch. No explicit meaning
need be assigned to the undefined concepts. These elements, point, line,
plane, and others, could be replaced, as Hilbert put it, by tables, chairs,
beer mugs, or other objects. Of course, if geometry deals with " things," the
axioms are certainly not self-evident truths but must be regarded as arbitrary
even though, in fact, they are suggested by experience.
Hilbert first lists his undefined concepts. They are point, line, plane,
lie on (a relation between point and line), lie on (a relation between point
and plane), betweenness, congruence of pairs of points, and congruence of
angles. The axiom system treats plane and solid Euclidean geometry in one
set and the axioms are broken up into groups. The first group contains
axioms on existence:
ll. Memorie della Reqle Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, (2), 49, 1899, 173-222.
FOUNDATIONS OF EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY IOII
l. Axioms of Connection
Ir. To each two points A and B there is one line a which lies on z4 and B.
Ir. To each two points A and B there is not more than one line which lies
on A and B.
I.. On each line there are at least two Points. There exist at least three
points which do not lie on one line.
Io. To any three points A, B, arrd C which do not lie on one line there is a
plane c which lies on [contains] these three points. On each plane there
is [at least] one point.
Iu. To any three points A, B, and C not on one line there is not more than
one plane containing these three Points.
I.. If two points of a line lie on a plane a then every point of the line lies
on c.
Ir. If two planes c and p have a point ,4 in common, then they have at
least one more point .B in common.
I.. There are at least four points not lying on the same plane.
The second group o[ axioms supplies the most serious omission in
Euclid's set, namely, axioms about the relative order of points and lines:
lI. Axi.oms of Betueenness

IIr. If a point B lies between points I and C then A, B, and C are three
different points on one line and B also lies between C and A.
II2. To any two points I and C there is at least one point B on the line AC
such that C lies between A and B.
IIs. Among any three points on a line there is not more than one which
lies between the other two.
Axioms II2 and II, amount to making the line infinite.
Defnition. Let I and -B be two points of a line a. The pair of points

A, B or B,l lB. The points between I and I are called
is called the segment
points of the segment or points interior to the segment. A and B are called
endpoints of the segment. All other points of line a are said to be outside
the segment.
IIn. (Pasch's Axiom) Let A, B, and C be the three points not on one line
and let a be any line in the plane of A, B, and C but which does not
go through (lie on) l, B, or C. If a goes through a point of the segment
IOI2 THE FOUNDATIONS OF GEOMETRY
AB then it must also go through a point of the segment lC or one of

the segment .BC.
lll. Axioms oJ Congruence
III1. If l, B are two points of a line a and ,4' is a point of a or another

line a', then on a given side (previously defined) ol A' on the line a'
one can find a point .B' such that the segment lB is congruent to
A'B'.In symbols AB : A'B'.
l[l2. If A'B' and A'B'are congruent to lB then A'B' : A'8".
This axiom limits Euclid's " Things equal to the same thing are equal
to each other" to line segments.
III3. Let AB and BC be segments without common interior points on a
line a and let A'B' and B'C' be segments without common interior
points on a line a'. lf AB : A'B' and BC : B'C' , then AC : A'C'.
This amounts to Euclid's " Equals added to equals gives equals "
applied to line segments.
III.. Let {(n, f) lie in a plane a and let a line a' lie in a plane cr' and a
definite side of a' in o' be given. Let h' be a ray of a' which emanates
from the point O'. Then in o'there is one and only one ray,t'such
that +(rt, *) is congruent to {(i', *') and all inner points of j.(h', k')
lie on the given side of a' . Each angle is congruent to itself.
III". If for two triangles ABC and A'B'C'wehave AB : A'B', AC : A'C',
and {BAC : {B'A'C'then jABC: 4A'B'C'.
This last axiom can be used to prove that {ACB : {A'C'B'. One
considers the same two triangles and the same hypotheses. Ilowever, by
taking first AC : A'C' and then AB : A'B', we are entitled to conclude
that 4ACB : 4A'C'B' because the wording of the axiom applied to the
new order of the hypotheses yields this new conclusion.
lY. The Axiom on Parallek
Let a be a line and ,4 a point not on a. Then in the plane of a and, A there
exists at most one line through I which does not meet d.
The existence of at least one line through,4 which does not meet d can
be proved and hence is not needed in this axiom.
Y. Axioms of Continuity
Vr. (Axiom of Archimedes) lf AB andCD areany two segments, then there
exists on the line ,4.B a number of points Ar, Ar, .. . , ln such that the
FOUNDATTONS OF EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY ror3
segments AAL, ArA2, ArA",. . ,, An-rAn are congruent to CD and such

that B lies between A and A".
Vr. (Axiom of Linear Completeness) The points of a line form a collection
of points which, satisfying axioms I1, 12, II, III, and V1, cannot be
extended to a larger collection which continues to satisly these axioms.
This axiom amounts to requiring enough points on the line so that the
points can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the real numbers.
Though this fact had been used consciously and unconsciously since the
days of coordinate geometry, the logical basis for it had not previously
been stated.
With these axioms Hilbert proved some of the basic theorems of Euclid-
ean geometry. Others completed the task of showing that all of Euclidean
geometry does follow from the axioms.
The arbitrary character of the axioms of Euclidean geometry, that is,
their independence of physical reality, brought to the fore another problem,
the consistency of this geometry. As long as Euclidean geometry was regarded
as the truth about physical space, any doubt about its consistency seemed
pointless. But the new understanding of the undefined concePts and axioms
required that the consistency be established. The problem was all the more
vital because the consistency of the non-Euclidean geometries had been
reduced to that of Euclidean geometry (Chap. 38, sec.4). Poincard brought
this matter up in 189812 and said that we could believe in the consistency of
an axiomatically grounded structure if we could give it an arithmetic
interpretation. Hilbert proceeded to show that Euclidean geometry is
consistent by supplying such an interpretation.
He identifies (in the case of plane geometry) point with the ordered
pair of real numbers 13 (a, b) and line with the ratio (u:a:u) in which z and
a are r,ot both 0. A point lies on a line if
ua+ob+&--O.
Congruence is interpreted algebraically by means of the expressions for
translation and rotation ol analytic geometry; that is, two figures are
congruent if one can be transformed into the other by translation, reflection
in the r-axis, and rotation.
After every concept has been interpreted arithmetically and it is clear
that the axioms are satisfied by the interpretation, Hilbert's argument is
that the theorems must also apply to the interpretation because they are
Iogical consequences ofthe axioms. Ifthere were a contradiction in Euclidean
geometry, then the same would hold of the algebraic formulation ofgeometry,
12. Monist, S, tASA, p. ae.

13. Strictty he uscs a morc limited set of real numbcrs.
ror4 THE FOUNDATIONS OF GEOMETRY
which is an extension of arithmetic' Hence trf arithmetic is consistent, so is

Euclidean geometry. The consistency of arithmetic remained oPen at this
time (see Chap. 5l).
It is desirable to show that no one of the axioms can be deduced from
some or all of the others of a given set, for if it can be ieduced there is no
need to include it as an axiom. This notion of independence was brought
up and discussed by Peano in the lB94 PaPer already referred to, and even
earlier in his lr ithmctices Principrd ( I BSg). Hilbert considered the independence
of his axioms. However, it is not possible in his system to show that each
axiom is indcpendent of all the others because the meaning of some ol
them depends upon preceding ones. What Hilbert did succeed in showing
was that all the axioms ofany one grouP cannot be deduced from the axioms
of the other four groups. His method was to give consistent interprstations
or models that satisfy the axioms of four groups but do not satisfy all the
axioms of the fifth group.
The proofs of independence have a special bearing on non-Euclidean
geometry. To establish the independence of the parallel axiom, Hilbert
gave a model that satisfies the other four groups of axioms but does not satisfy
the Euclidean parallel axiom. His model uses the points interior to a Euclid-
ean sphere and special transformations which take the boundary of the
sphere into itself. Hence the parallel axiom cannot be a consequence of the
othcr four groups because ifit were, the model as a part ofEuclidean geometry
would possess contradictory ProPerties on parallelism. This same proolshows
that non-Euctidean geometry is possible because if the Euclidean parallel
axiom is independent of the other axioms, a denial of this axiom must also
be independent; for if it were a consequence, the lull set of Euclidean axioms
would contain a contradiction.
Hilbert's system of axioms ficr Euclidean geometry' which first appeared
in 1899, attracted a great deal of attention to the foundations of Euclidean
geometry and many men gave alternative versions using different sets of
undefined elements or variations in the axioms. Hilbert himself, as we have
already noted, kept changing his system until he gave the 1930 version'
Among the numerous alternative systems we shall mention just one' Veblen
1a
gave a set of axioms based on the undefined concepts of point and order'
Hc showed that each of his axioms is independent of the others, and he
also established another property, namely, categoricalness. This notion was
first clearly stated and used by Edward V. Huntington (1874-1952) in a
paper devoted to the real number system.15 (He called the notion sufficiency')
A set of axioms Pr, Pr,. . ., Pn connecting a set of undefined symbols
Sr, Sr,. . ,, S, is said to be categorical if between the elements of any two
assemblages, each of which contains undefined symbols and satisfies thc
14, Amcr. Moth. Soc. Trans.,5, 1904, 343-84.
15. Amcr, Malh. Soc. Trans.,3, 1902,26+-79.
SOME RELATED FOUNDATIONAL WORK ror5
axioms, it is possible to set up a one-to-one correspondence ofthe undefined
concepts which is preserved by the relationships asserted by the axioms;
that is, the two systems are isomorphic. In effect categoricalness means that
all interpretations ofthe axiom system differ only in language. This property
would not hold il, for example, the parallel axiom were omitted, because
then Euclidean and hyperbolic non-Euclidean geometry would be noniso-
morphic interpretations of the reduced set of axioms.
Categoricalness implies another property which Veblen called disjunc-
tive and which is now called completeness. A set of axioms is called complete
il it is impossible to add another axiom that is independent of the given
set and consistent with the given set (without introducing new primitive
concepts). Categoricalness implies completeness, for if a set I of axioms
were categorical but not complete it would be possible to introduce an
axiom S such that S and not-S are consistent with the set l. Then, since
the original set I is categorical, there would be isomorphic interpretations
of I together with S and I together with not-S. But this would be impossible
because the corr.esponding propositions in the two interpretations must
hold, whereas S would apply to one interpretation and not-.S to the other.
4. Some Related Foundational Work

The clear delineation of the axioms for Euclidean geometry suggested the
corresponding investigations for the several non-Euclidean geometries, One
of the nice features of Hilbert's axioms is that the axioms for hyperbolic
non-Euclidean geometry are obtained at once by replacing the Euclidean
parallel axiom by the Lobatchevsky-Bolyai axiom. All the other axioms in
Hilbert's system remain the same.
To obtain axioms for either single or double elliptic geometry, one
must not only abandon the Euclidean parallel axiom in favor ofan axiom
to the effect that any two lines have one point in common (single elliptic)
or at least one in common (double elliptic), but one must also change other
axioms. The straight line of these geometries is not infinite but has the
properties of a circle. Hence one must replace the order axioms of Euclid-
ean geometry by order axioms that describe the order relations ofpoints on
a circle. Several such axiom systems have been given. George B. Halsted
(1853-1922), in his Rational Geometry,ta and John R. Kline (189l-1955) r?
have given axiomatic bases for double elliptic geometry; and Gerhard
Hessenberg (1874-1925)18 gave a system of axioms for single elliptic
geometry.
16. 1904, pp. 21247.

17. Annals of Math., (2), 18, lgl6l17, 3144.
18. Math. Ann., 61, 1905, 173-84.
1016 THE FOUNDATIONS OF GEOMETRY
Another class ol investigations in the foundations of geometry is to

consider the consequences ol denying orjust omitting one or more of a set
of axioms. Hilbert in his independence proofs had done this himsell, lor the
essence ofsuch a proof is to construct a model or interpretation that satisfies
all of the axioms except the one whose independence is to be established.
The most significant example ol an axiom that was denied is, of course, the
parallel axiom. Interesting results have come from dropping the axiom of
Archimedes, which can be stated as in Hilbert's Vr. The resulting geometry
is called non-Archimedean; in it there are segments such that the multiple
of one by any whole number, however large, need not exceed another'
ln Fondamenti di gcometria, Giuseppe Veronese constructed such a geometry'
He also showed that the theorems of this geometry approximate as closely
as one wishes those of Euclidean geometry.
Max Dehn (lS7B-1952) also obtained ls many interesting theorems
by omitting the Archimedean axiom. For example, there is a geometry in
*ii"h th. angle sum is two right angles, similar but noncongruent triangles
exist, and an infinity of straight lines that are parallel to a given line may be
drawn through a given point.
Hilbert pointed out that the axiom of continuity, axiom V2, need not
be used in constructing the theory of areas in the plane. But lor space Max
Dehn proved 20 the existence of polyhedra having the same volume though
not decomposable into mutually congruent parts (even after the addition
of cong.uent polyhedra). Ilence in three dimensions the axiom of continuity
is needed.
The foundation of Euclidean geometry was approached in an entirely
different manner by some mathematicians. Geometry, as we know, had
fallen into disfavor because mathematicians found that they had uncon-
sciously accepted facts on an intuitive basis, and their supposed proofs were
consequently incomplete. The danger that this would continually recur
for geometry would be arith-
-ade ihe- believe that the only sound basis
metic. The way to erect such a basis was clear' In fact, Hilbert had given
an arithmetic interpretation of Euclidean geometry' What had to be done
now, for plane geometry say, was not to interpret point as the pair olnumbers
(r, y) bui to defne point to be the pair. of numbers, to define a line as a ratio
of ihree numbers (u:t:w), to define the point (x,g) as being on the line
(u, a, u) if and only il ux I u! + w -- O, to define circle as the set ol all
(*,y) satislying the equation (* - o)' + (y - b)' : and so on' In other
*o.dr, or.'*o,rld use the analytic geometry ",
equivalents of purely geometric
notions as the definitions of the geometrical concepts and algebraic methods
to prove theorems. Since analytic geometry contains in algebraic lorm the
19. Math. Ann.,53, 1900, 404-39.

20. Math. Ann.,55, 1902, 465-78'
soME oPEN qUESTIONS rotT
complete counterpart of all that exists in Euclidean geometry, there was

no question that the arithmetic foundations could be obtained. Actually
the technical work involved had really been done, even for z-dimensional
Euclidean geometry, for example by Grassmann in his Calculus of Extension;
and Grassmann himself proposed that this work serve as the foundation
for Euclidean geometry.
5. Some Open Questions

The critical investigation ol geometry extended beyond the reconstruction
of the foundations. Curves had of course been used freely. The simpler ones,
such as the ellipse, had secure geometrical and analytical definitions. But
many curves were introduced only through equations and functions. The
rigorization of analysis had included not only a broadening of the concept
oflunction but the construction olvery peculiar functions, such as continuous
functions without derivatives. That the unusual functions were troublesome
from the geometric standpoint is readily seen. Thus the curve representing
Weierstrass's example of a function which is continuous everywhere but is
differentiable nowhere certainly did not fit the usual concept, because the
lack of a derivative means that such a curve cannot have a tangent any-
where. The question that arose was, Are the geometrical representations of
such functions curves ? More generally, what is a curve ?
Jordan gave a definition of a curve.21 It is the set of points represented
by the continuous functions x:J(t),y: g(t)' for lo (, < 11. For some
purposes Jordan wished to restrict his curves so that they did not possess
multiple points. He therefore required that f (t) I f (t') and eO) * SQ')
for I and t' in (to,lr) or that to each (r,g) there is one I. Such a curve is
now called a Jordan curve.
It was in this work that he added the notion of closed curve,22 which
requires merely thatrf(I o) : -f(tr) and g(lo) : C(rl)' and stated the theorem
that a closed curve divides the plane into two parts, an inside and an outside.
Two points ol the same region can always be joined by a polygonal path
that does not cut the curve. Two points not in the same region cannot be
joined by any polygonal line or continuous curve that does not cut the
simple closed curve. The theorem is more powerful than it seems at first
sight because a simple closed curve can be quite crinkly in shape. In fact,
since the functionsrf(t) and g(l) need be only continuous, the full variety of
complicated continuous functions is involved. Jordan himself and many
distinguished mathematicians gave incorrect proofs ol the theorem. The first
rigorous proof is due to Veblen.23
21. Cours d'analgse, lst ed. Vol. 3, 1887, 593; 2nd ed., Vol. I' 1893' p' 90.
22. First ed., p. 593; 2nd ed., p' 98.
23. Amer. Math. Soc. Trans.,6, 1905, 83-98, and 14, 1913, 65-72.
IOIS THE FOUNDATIONS OF GEOMETRY
Figure 42.3 o
However, Jordan's definition of a curve, though satisfactory for many

applications, was too broad. In 1890 Peano2a discovered that a curve
meeting Jordan's definition can run through all the points of a square at
least once, Peano gave a detailed arithmetic description olthe correspondence
between the points of the interval [0, l] and the Points of the square which,
in effect, specifies two functions *:-f(t),y: C(t) that are single-valued
and continuousfor 0 < I < I and such that* andy take onvalues belonging
to each point of the unit square. However, the correspondence of (x, y) to t
is not single-valued, nor is it continuous. A one-to-one continuous corre-
spondence from the ,-values to the ('r, y)-values is impossible; that is, both
/(f ) and g(t) cannot be continuous. This was proved by Eugen E. Netto
(1846-1919).35
The geometrical interPretation of Peano's curve was given by Arthur
M. Schoenflies (1853-1928)'z6 and E' H. Moore.2? One maps the line
segment [0, l] into the nine segments shown in Figure 42.3, and then
within each subsquare breaks up the segment contained there into the same
pattern but making the transition from one subsquare to the next one a
continuous one . The process is repeated ad infinitum, and the limiting point
28 gave the
set covers the original square. Ernesto Cesiro (1859-1906)
analytical form of Peano's;tand g.
Hilbertse gave another example of the continuous mapping ol a unit
segment onto the square. Divide the unit segment (Fig. a2.a) and the square
into four equal parts, thus:
24. Math. Ann.,36, 1890, 157-60 : Olere sceltc, I' I 10-15.

25. Jour. fiir Math., 86, 1879, 263-68.
26. Jahres. der Deul. Math.-Veruin., 82, 190O, l2l-25.
27. Amer. Math. Soc. Trans., 1,1900, 72-90'
28. Bull. des Sci. Math., (2)'21,1897,257-66.
29. Math. Anr.,38, 1891, 459-60 : Ges. Abh.,3, l-2-
soME oPEN QUESTIONS ror9
P, P.
t I, t 2 r 3 t 4 t
Pr Pa P! P. P5
P1 P,
Figure 42.4
Travel through each subsquare so that the path shown corresPonds to the
unit segment. Now divide the unit square into 16 subsquares numbered as
shown in Figure 42.5 and join the centers of the l6 subsquares as shown.
We continue the process of dividing each subsquare into fiour parts,
numbering them so that we can traverse the entire set by a continuous Path.
The desired curve is the limit of the successive polygonal curves formed at
each stage. Since the subsquares and the parts of the unit segment both
contract to a point as the subdivision continues, we can see intuitively that
each point on the unit segment maps into one point on the square' In fact,
if we fix on one point in the unit segment, saf t :2/3, then the image of
this point is the limit of the successive images of t -- 213 which appear in the
successive polygons.
These examples show that the definition of a curve Jordan suggested
is not satisfactory because a curve, according to this definition, can fill out
a square, The question of what is meant by a curve remained oPen. Felix
Klein remarked in lB9B30 that nothing was more obscure than the notion
ofa curve. This question was taken up by the topologists (Chap. 50, sec. 2).
l6 l3 t2 _lll
I f--
L_ __lt4
l5
9 _l t0
I-_
2 _-l3 L_ _l7
I
I-_
L_ __l
t + .5 6
Figure 42.5
30. Math. Ann.,50, 1898, 586.

ro20 TIIE FOUNDATIONS OF GEOMETRY
Beyond the problem of what is meant by a curve, the extension ofanal-

ysis to functions withoutderivatives also raised the question of what is
meant by the length of a curve. The usual calculus lormula
L: lo fi + u'2\rt2 dt('
J"'
where y :;f(*), calls, at the very
least, for the existence of the derivative.
Hence, the concept no longer applies to the non-differentiable functions.
Various efforts to generalize the concept of length of curve were made by
Du Bois-Reymond, Peano, Ludwig Scheeffer (1859-85), and Jordan, using
either generalized integral definitions or geometric concepts' The most
general definition was formulated in terms of the notion ol measure, which
we shall examine in ChaPter 44.
A similar difficulty was noted for the concept of area of a surface. The
concept favored in the texts of the nineteenth century was to inscribe in
the surface a polyhedron with triangular faces. The limit of the sum ol the
areas of these triangles when the sides approach 0 was taken to be the area
of the surface. Analytically, if the surface is representedby
y : g(u, a), y: r!(u,a), 2 : y(u, u)
then the formula lior surface area becomes
L t/,q, + arT@ dudr,

where l,
B, and C are the Jacobians of y and z, * and, z, and x and y, respec-
tively. Again the question arose of what the definition should be il x, g, and
z do not possess derivatives. To complicate the situation, in a letter to
Hermite, H. A. Schwarz Bave aL examplesl in which the choice of the
triangles leads to an infinite surface area even lor any ordinary cylinder.32
The theory of surface area was also reconsidered in terms of the notion of
measure.
By 1900 no one had proved that every closed plane curve, as defined
by Jordan and Peano, encloses an area. Helge von Koch (1870-1924)33
complicated the area problem by giving an example of a continuous but
non-differentiable curve with infinite perimeter which bounds a fi.nite area.
One starts with the equilateral triangle ABC (Fig. 42.6) of side 3s. On the
middle third of each side construct an equilateral triangle of side s and
delete the base of each triangle. There will be three such triangles. Then
on each outsidt segmentof length s of the new fi.gure construct on each middle
31. Ges. Math. Abh.,2' pp. 309-ll.

32. This example can be found in James Pierpont, The Theory of Functions o1f Real variables,
Dover (reprint), 1959, Vol' 2, P. 26.
33. Acta Math.,30, 1906, 145-76.
soME oPEN gUESTTONS I02I
third an equilateral triangle of side s/3 and delete the base of each triangle.
There will be twelve such triangles. Then on the outside segments of the
resulting figure, construct a new equilateral triangle of side s/9. There will
be 48 of these triangles. The perimeters of the successive figures are 9s, l2s,
16.r, . . . and these perimeters become infinite. However, the area of the
limiting figure is finite. For, by the well-known formula for the area of an
equilateral triangle in terms of its side, namely, if the side isJ, the area is
y'5. The area of
1i'1+1 t4, then the area of the original triangle is t(3s)'z/al
the first three triangles added is 3' (s'z14)\/3. Since the side of the next
triangles added is ,/3 ..rd there are 12, these areas are l2(slq2\nft :
(s'z 13)\/3. The sum of the areas is
s : L+' {-z + !r* l5 *'z * * r# {5 +....

This is an infinite geometiic progression (aside from the first term) with
common ratio 4/9. Then
: tfr a 1_ffi
.( 9r,
o_z_v"r :E
(1tgs,:F _5",r,l5.
The Peano and Hilbert curves also raised the question of what we mean
by dimension. The square is two-dimensional in itself, but, as the continuous
image of a curve, should be one-dimensional' Moreover, Cantor had shown
that the points ola line segment can be put into one-to-one correspondence
with the points ofa square (Chap. 41, sec. 7). Though this correspondence
is not continuous from the line segment to the square or the other way, it
did show that dimension is not a matter of multiplicity of points. Nor is it a
matter of the number of coordinates needed to fix the position of a point, as
Riemann and Helmholtz had thought, because the Peano curve assigns a
unique (r, y) to each value of ,.
to22 THE FOUNDA'I]ONS OF GEOMETRY
In the light of these difficulties we see that the rigorization of geometry

certainly did not answer all the questions that were raised. Many were
settled by the topologists and analysts ofthe next century. The very fact that
questions about fundamental concePts continued to arise illustrates once
more that mathematics does not grow as a logical structure. Advances into
new fields and even the perfection of old ones reveal new and unsuspected
defects. Beyond the resolution of the problems involving curves and surfaces
we have yet to see whether the ultimate stage in rigor was reached by the
foundational work in analysis, the real number system, and basic geometry'
Bibliograplry
Beckcr, Oskar: Grundlagm der Mattumatik in gcschiehtlichet Entwicklung, Karl Alber,
1954, 199_212.
Enriqucs, Federigo: " Prinzipicn der Geometric," Ercyk. der Math' Wiss', B' G'
Teubner, 1907-10, III ABl, l-129.
Hilbert, Davidz Gruwllagcn der Geomttrb, 7th ed., B. G. Teubner, 1930'
Pasch, M. and NI. Dehn: Vorhsungen iibcr aewrc Gcomctric,2nd ed', Julius Springer,
1926, l8!27t.
Pcano, Giuseppc t Opac scelte,3 vols., Edizioni Cremonese, 1957-59'
Reichardt, Hans: C. F. Gauss, Ltbcn und ll'crke, Haude und Spenersche, 1960,
I I l-50.
Schmidt, Arnold : " Zu Hilberts Grundlegung der Geometrie ," in Hilbert's
Gcsammclk Abhandlungen, 2' 404-14.
Singh, A. N. : " The Theory and Construction of Non-Differentiable Functions,"
in E. W. Hobson: Squaring lhe Citclc and Othn Monographs, Chelsea (reprint),
1953.
+3
Mathematics as of Igoo
I have not hesitated in 1900, at the Congress of Mathe-

maticians in Paris, to call the nineteenth century the century
of the theory of functions. VIT() VOLTERRA
L The Chid Features of the Nineteenth-Century Dettelopments

ft was true in the nineteenth as in the two preceding centuries that the
progress in mathematics brought with it larger changes barely perceptible
in the year-to-year developments but vital in themselves and in their effect
on future developments. The vast expansion in subject matter and the opening
of new fields as well as the extension of older ones are of course aPParent-
Algebra received a totally new impetus with Galois; geometry again became
active and was radically altered with the introduction of non-Euclidean
geometry and the revival of projective geometry; number theory flowed over
into analytic number theory; and analysis was immeasurably broadened by
the introduction of complex function theory and the expansion in ordinary
and partial differential equations. From the standpoint of technical develop-
ment, complex function theory was the most significant of the new creations.
But from the standpoint of intellectual importance and ultimate effect on the
nature of mathematics, the most consequential development was non-
Euclidean geometry. As we shall see, its effects were far more revolutionary
than we have thus far pointed out. The circle within which mathematical
studies appeared to be enclosed at the beginning of the century was broken
at all points, and mathematics exploded into a hundred branches' The flood
of new results contradicted sharply the leading opinion at the end o[ the
eighteenth century that the mine of mathematics was exhausted.
Mathematical activity during the nineteenth century expanded in
other respects. The number of mathematicians increased enormously as a
consequence of the democratization of learning' Though Germany, France,
and Britain were the major centers, Italy reappears in the arena, and the
United States, with Benjamin Peirce, G. W. Hill, and Josiah Willard Gibbs,
enters lor the first time. In 1863 the United States founded the National
Academy of Sciences. However, unlike the Royal Society of London, the
t023
t024 MATHEMATICS AS OF I9OO
Academy of Sciences of Paris, and the Academy of Sciences of Berlin, the

National Academy has not been a scientific meeting place at which papers
have been presented and reviewed. It does publish a journal, the Prooeedings
of thc Academy. More mathematical societies were organized (Chap' 26, sec' 6)
for the meeting of research men, the presentation ofpapers, and the sponsor-
ship ofjournals. By the end of the century the number ofjournals devoted
paitly o. entirely to mathematical research increased to about 950' In 1897
the practice of holding an international congress every four years was begun'
Accompanying the explosionof mathematical activity was a less
healthy development. The many disciplines became autonomous, each
featuring its own terminology and methodology. The pursuit of any one
imposed the assumption of more specialized and more difficult problems,
requiring more and more ingenious ideas, rich inspirations, and less per-
spicuous proofs. To make progresr, mathematicians had to acquire a great
deal of background in theory and technical facility' Specialization became
apparent in the work of Abel, Jacobi, Galois, Poncelet, and others. Though
,o-a ,t..r. was laid on interrelationships among the many branches through
such notions as groups, linear transformations, and invariance, the overall
effect was a segregation into numerous distinct and unrelated divisions. It
did seem to Felix Klein in 1893 that the specialization and divergence ofthe
various branches could be overcome by means ofthe conceptsjust mentioned,
but the hope was vain. Cauchy and Gauss were the last men to know the
subject as a whole, though Poincard and Hilbert were almost universal men'
From the nineteenth century on one finds mathematicians who work
only in small corners of mathematics; quite naturally, each rates the im-
portance of his area above all others. His publications are no longer for a
large public but for particular colleagues. Most articles no longer contain any
indication of their connection with the larger problems of mathematics, are
hardly accessible to many mathematicians, and are certainly not palatable
to a large circle.
Beyond its achievements in subject matter, the nineteenth century
reintroduced rigorous proof. No matter what individual mathematicians may
have thought about the soundness of their results, the f,act is that lrom about
200 s.c. to about lB70 almost all of mathematics rested on an empirical and
pragmatic basis. The concePt ol deductive proof from explicit axioms had
L..r, lott sight of. It is one of the astonishing revelations of the history of
mathematics that this ideal of the subject was, in effect, ignored during the
two thousand years in which its content expanded so extensively' Though
some earlier efforts to rigorize analysis were made, notably by Lagrange
(Chap. 19, sec. 7), the more characteristic note was sounded by Lacroix
(Chap. 26, sec. 3). Fourier's work makes a modern analyst's hair stand on
end; and as flar as Poisson was concerned, the derivative and integral were
just shorthand lor the difference quotient and a finite sum. The movement
FEATURES OF TIIE CENTURY r 025
to shore up the foundations, initiated by Bolzano and Cauchy, undoubtedly

arose from the concern for the rapidly increasing mass of mathematics that
rested on the loose foundations of the calculus. The movement was ac-
celerated by Hamilton's discovery of the non-commutative quaternions,
which surely challenged the uncritically accepted principles of number' But
even more disturbing was the creation of non-Euclidean geometry' Not only
did this destroy the very notion of the self-evidency of axioms and their too-
superficial acceptance, but the work revealed inadequacies in prools that had
been regarded as the soundest in all of mathematics. The mathematicians
realized that they had been gullible and had relied upon intuition'
By 1900 the goal of establishing mathematics rigorously seemed to have
been achieved, and the mathematicians were almost smug about this
accomplishment. In his address belore the Second International congress in
Paris,tPoincard boasted, "Have we at last attained absolute rigor ? At each
stage olits evolution our forerunners believed they too had attained it. Ifthey
were deceived are we not deceived like them ? . . . Now in analysis today, if
we care to take pains to be rigorous, there are only syllogisms or appeals to the
intuition of pure number that cannotpossibly deceive us. One may say today
that absolute rigor has been attained." when one considers the key results
in the foundations ol the number system and geometry and the erection of
analysis on the basis ol the number system, one can see reason for gloating'
Mathematics now had the foundation that almost all rnen were haPPy to
accept.
The precise formulation of basic concePts such as the irrational number,
continuity, integral, and derivative was not greeted enthusiastically by all
mathematicians. Many did not understand the new e-E language and re-
garded the precise definitions as fads, unnecessary for the comprehension of
mathematics or even lor rigorous proof. These men felt that intuition was
good enough, despite the surprises ofcontinuous functions without derivatives,
space-filling curves, and curves without length. Emile Picard said, apropos of
the rigor in partial differential equations, ".. . true rigor is productive,
being distinguished in this from another rigor which is purely formal and
tiresome, casting a shadow over the problems it touches'"
2
Despite the fact that geometry too had been rigorized, one consequence
of the rigorization movement was that number and analysis took precedence
o.r., g.o-.try. The recognition by mathematicians, during and after the
creation ofnon-Euclidean geometry, that they had unconsciously relied upon
intuition in accepting the prools of Euclidean geometry made them learful
that they would continue to do so in all geometric reasoning' Hence they
preferred a mathematics built upon number. Many favored going further
l. Comp. Rendu du Deuxiime Congris Internat. des Math., 1900, pub' 1902' pp' l2l-22'
2. Amir. Math. Soc. Bull.,ll, 1904/05,417; see also Chap. 40, sec' 7, and Chap' 41, secs' 5
and 9-
r026 MATHEMATICS AS OF I9OO
and building up all of geometry on number, which could be done through

analytic geometry in the manner already described. Thus most mathe-
maticians spoke of the arithmetization of mathematics, though it would have
been more accurate to speak of the arithmetization of analysis. Where Plato
could say that "God eternally geometrizes," Jacobi, even by the middle of
the century, said, " God ever arithmetizes." At the Second International
Congress Poincard asserted, "Today there remain in analysis only integers
and finite and infinite systems of integers, interrelated by a net of relations
of equality or inequality. Mathematics, as we say, has been arithmetized."
Pascal had said, " Toul cc qui passc la Giomitrie nous passe." 3 In 1900 the
mathematicians preferred to vy, " Tout cc qui passe I'Arithmitique nous passe."
The erection of the logical foundations of mathematics, quite apart
from whether arithmetic or geometry was the preferred basis, completed
another step in the break from metaphysics, The vagueness ofthe foundations
and justifications of mathematical steps had been evaded in the eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries by allusions to metaphysical arguments which,
though never made explicit, were mentioned as grounds for accepting the
mathematics. The axiomatization of the real numbers and geometry gave
mathematics a clear-cut, independent, and self-sufficient basis. The recourse
to metaphysics was no longer needed. As Lord Kelvin put it, " Mathematics
is the only good. metaphysics."
The rigorization of mathematics may have filled a nineteenth-century
need, but it also teaches us something about the development of the subject.
The newly founded logical structure presumably guaranteed the soundness
of mathematics; but the guarantee was somewhat of a sham. Not a theorem of
arithmetic, algebra, or Euclidean geometry was changed as a consequence,
and the theorems of analysis had only to be more carefully formulated. In
fact, all that the new axiomatic structures and rigor did was substantiate
what mathematicians knew had to be the case. Indeed the axioms had to
yield the existing theorems rather than determine them. All of which means
that mathematics rests not on logic but on sound intuitions. Rigor, asJacques
Hadamard pointed out, merely sanctions the conquests of the intuition; or,
as Hermann Weyl stated, logic is the hygiene the mathematician practices to
keep his ideas healthy and strong.
2. Tlu Axiomatic Moaement

The rigorization of mathematics was achieved by axiomatizing the various
branches. The essence ofan axiomatic development, in accordance with the
pattern we have examined in Chapters 4l and 42, is to start with undefined
terms whose properties are specified by the axioms; the goal of the work is to
3. "All that transcends geometry transcends our comprehension."

to27
derive the consequences of the axioms. In addition the independence, con-

sistency, and categoricalness ofthe axioms (notions we have already examined
in the two preceding chapters) are to be established for each system.
By the early part ol the twentieth century the axiomatic method not
only permitted the establishment of the logical foundations of many old and
newer branches of mathematics, but also revealed precisely what assumptions
underlie each branch and made possible the comparison and clarification of
the relationships of various branches. Hilbert was enthusiastic about the
values of this method. In discussing the perfect state mathematics had pre-
sumably attained by founding each olits branches on sound axiomatic bases,
Hilbert remarked,a
Indeed the axiomatic method is and remains the one suitable and
indispensable aid to the spirit of every exact investigation no matter in
what domain; it is logically unassailable and at the same time fruitful; it
guarantees thereby complete freedom ofinvestigation. To proceed axioma-
tically means in this sense nothing else than to think with knowledge of
what one is about. While earlier without the axiomatic method one pro-
ceeded naively in that one believed in certain relationships as dogma, the
axiomatic approach removes this naivetd and yet permits the advantages
of belief.
Again, in the last part of his "Axiomatisches Denken," s he praised the

method:
Everything that can be the object of mathematical thinking, as soon ali

the erection of a theory is ripe, falls into the axiomatic method and
thereby directly into mathematics. By pressing to ever deeper layers of
axioms. . . we can obtain deeper insights into scientific thinking and
learn the unity of our knowledge. Especially by virtue of the axiomatic
method mathematics appears called upon to play a leading role in all
knowledge.
The opportunity to explore new problems by omitting, negating, or

varying in some other manner the axioms of established systems enticed many
mathematicians. This activity and the erection of axiomatic bases for the
various branches of mathematics are known as the axiomatic movement. It
continues to be a favorite activity. In part its great attraction is explained by
the fact that after sound axiomatic bases for the major branches have been
erected, variations of the kind just described are relatively easy to introduce
and explore. However, any new development in mathematics has always
attracted a number of men who seek fields wide-open to exPloration or are
sincerely convinced that the future of mathematics lies in that particular arca.
4. Abh. Malh. Seminar der Hamburgct (Jaia., 1,1922, 157-77 : Ccs, Abh.,3, 157-77.
5. Math. Ann.,78, 1918, 405-15 : Gcs, Abh.,3, 145-56'
r028 MATHEMATICS AS OF I9OO
3. Mathematics as Man's Creation

From the standpoint of the future development of mathematics, the most
significant happening of the century was the acquisition of the correct view
of the relationship of mathematics to nature. Though we have not treated the
views on mathematics of many of the men whose work we have described, we
have said that the Greeks, Descartes, Newton, Euler, and many others
believed mathematics to be the accurate description of real phenomena and
that they regarded their work as the uncovering of the mathematical design
of the universe. Mathematics did deal with abstractions, but these were no
more than the ideal forms of physical objects or happenings. Even such
concepts as functions and derivatives were demanded by real phenomena and
served to describe them.
Beyond what we have already rePorted that supports this view ol
mathematics, the position of mathematicians on the number of dimensions
that can be considered in geometry shows clearly how closely mathematics
had been tied to reality. Thus, in the first book of the Heaun, Atistotle says,
"The line has magnitude in one way, the plane in two ways, and the solid in
three ways, and beyond these there is no other magnitude because the three
are all.. . . There is no transfer into another kind, like the transfer from
length to area and from area to solid." In another passage he says, ". . . no
magnitude can transcend three because there are no more than three dimen-
sions," and adds, "for three is the perfect number." In his Algebra, John
Wallis regarded a higher-dimensional space as a " monster in nature, less
possible than a chimera or a centaure." He says, " Length, Breadth and
Thickness take up the whole of space. Nor can Fansie imagine how there
should be a Fourth Local Dimension beyond these Three." Cardan,
Descartes, Pascal, and Leibniz had also considered the possibility of a
fourth dimension and rejected it as absurd. As long as algebra was tied to
geometry, the product of more than three quantities was also rejected.
Jacques Ozanam pointed out that a product of more than three letters will be
a magnitude of "as many dimensions as there are letters, but itwould only be
imaginary because in nature we do not know of any quantity which has
more than three dimensions."
The idea of a mathematical geometry of more than three dimensions
was rejected even in the early nineteenth century' Mobius, in his Der
barycentrische Calcut (1827), pointed out that geometrical figures that could not
be superposed in three dimensions because they are mirror images of each
other could be superposed in four dimensions. But then he says,6 "Since,
however, such a space cannot be thought about, the superposition is im-
possible." Kummer in the 1860s mocked the idea of a four-dimensional
geometry. The objections that all of these men made to a higher-dimensional
6. Ges. Werke, l, 172.

MATHEMATICS AS MAN,S CREATION IO29
geometry were sound as long as geometry was identified with the study of
physical space.
But gradually and unwittingly mathematicians began to introduce
concepts that had little or no direct physical meaning. Of these, negative
and complex numbers were the most troublesome. It was because these two
types of numbers had no "reality" in nature that they were still suspect at
the beginning olthe nineteenth century, even though freely utilized by then'
The geometrical representation of negative numbers as distances in one
direction on a line and of complex numbers as points or vectors in the com-
plex plane, which, as Gauss remarked of the latter, gave them intuitive
meaning and so madc them admissible, may have delayed the realization
that mathematics deals with man-made concepts. But then the introduction
of quaternions, non-Euclidean geometry, complex elements in geometry,
n-dimensional geometry, bizarre functions, and transfinite numbers forced
the recognition of the artificiality of mathematics.
In this connection the impact of non-Euclidean geometry has already
been noted (Chap. 36, sec. B) and the impact ol z-dimensional geometry
must now be observed. The concept aPpears innocuously in the analytical
work of d'Alembert, Euler, and Lagrange. D'Alembert suggested thinking
of time as a fourth dimension in his article " Dimension " in the Encyclopidie.
Lagrange, in studying the reduction of quadratic forms to standard forms,
casually introduces lorms in z variables. He, too, used time as a fourth
dimension in his fuIie anique analgtique ( I 7BB) and in his Thioric fus Jbnttions
analytiques (1797). He says in the latter work, "Thus we may regard mech-
anics as a geometry of four dimensions and analytic mechanics as an extension
ofanalytic geometry." Lagrange's work put the three sPatial coordinates and
the fourth one representing time on the same footing' Further, George Green
in his paper of l82B on potential theory did not hesitate to consider potel-
tial problems in n dimensions ; he says of the theory, " It is no longer confined,
as it was, to the three dimensions of space."
These early involvements in z dimensions were not intended as a study
of geometry proper. They were natural generalizations of analytical work
that was no longer tied to geometry' In part, this introduction of z-dimen-
sional language was intended only as a convenience and aid to analytical
thinking. It was helpful to think of (xr,xr,..., xn) as a point and of an
equation in z variables as a hypersurface in z-dimensional space, for by
thinking in terms of what these mean in three-dimensional geometry one
might secure some insight into the analytical work. In fact Cauchyz actually
emphasized that the concept of r-dimensional space is useful in many
analytical investigations, especially those of number theory.
However, the serious study of n-dimensional geometry, though not
7. Comp. Rend., 24, 1847,885-87 : (Ewres, (l), 10, 292-95.

ro3o MATI{EMATTCS AS OF I9OO
implying a physical space of a dimensions, was also undertaken in the

nineteenth century; the founder of this abstract geometry is Grassmann, in
his Austlchnungslchre of 1844. There one finds the concept of z-dimensional
geometry in full generality. Grassmann said in a note published in 1845,
My Calculus of Extension builds the abstract foundation of the theory

ofspace; that is, it is free ofall spatial intuition and is a pure mathematical
sciencel only the special application to [physical] space constitutes
8eometry.
However the theorems of the Calculus of Extension are not merely
translations of geometrical results into an abstract language; they have a
much more general significance, for while the ordinary geometry remains
bound to the three dimensions of [physical] space, the abstract science is
free of this limitation.
Grassmann adds that geometry in the usual sense is improperly regarded as a

branch of pure mathematics' but that it is really a branch of applied mathe-
matics since it deals with a subject not created by the intellect but given to it'
It deals with matter. But, he says' it should be possible to create a purely
intellectual subject that would deal with extension as a concePt, rather than
with the space perceived by the sensations. Thus Grassmann's work is
representative of the development asserting that pure thought can build
arbitrary constructions that may or may not be physically applicable.
C"ylay, independendy of Grassmann, also undertook to treat n-
dimensional geometry analytically, and, " without recourse to any
as he says,
metaphysical notions." ln the Cambridge Mathematical Journal of 1845,8
Cayley published " Chapters in the Analytical Geometry of .l[-Dimensions."
This work gives analytical results in z variables, which for ll : 3 state
known theorems about surfaces. Though he did nothing especially novel in
zdimensional geometry, the concePt is fully grasped there.
By the time that Riemann gav ehis Habilitatioflsaorhag of 1854, " Uber die
Hypothesen welche die Geomerie zu Grunde liegen," he had no hesitation
in dealing with z-dimensional manilolds, though he was primarily concerned
with the geometry of three-dimensional physical space. Those who followed
up on this basic paper-Helmholtz, Lie, Christoffel, Beltrami, Lipschitz,
Darboux, and others-continued to work in n-dimensional space.
The notion of z-dimensional geometry encountered stiff-necked re-
sistance from some mathematicians even long after it was introduced' Here,
as in the negative and complex numbers, mathematics was progressing
case of
beyond concepts suggested by experience, and mathematicians had yet to
grasp that their subject could consider concepts created by the mind and
was no longer, if it ever had been, a reading of nature.
8, 4, ll9-27 : Colhcred Math, Papers, 1,55'62'

MATIIEMATICS AS MAN'S CREATION r03r
However after about I 850, the view that mathematics can introduce
and deal with rather arbitrary concepts and theories that do not have im-
mediate physical interpretation but may nevetheless be useful, as in the case
olquaternions, or satisly a desire for generality, as in the case of a-dimensional
geometry, gained acceptance. Hankel in ltis Theorie der complexen Zahlen-
systeme (1867 , p. l0) defended mathematics as " purely intellectual, a pure
theory of forms, which has for its object, not the combination of quantities
or ol their images, the numbers, but things of thought to which there could
correspond effective objects or relations even though such a correspondence
is not necessary."
In delense of his creation of transfinite numbers as existing, real definite
quantities, Cantor claimed that mathematics is distinguished from other
fields by its freedom to create its own concepts without regard to transient
reality. He saids in 1883, " Mathematics is entirely free in its development
and its concepts are restricted only by the necessity ofbeing noncontradictory
and coordinated to concepts previously introduced by precise definitions. . . .
The essence of mathematics lies in its freedom." He preferred the term " free
mathematics" over the usual form, "pure mathematics."
The new view of mathematics extended to the older, physically grounded
branches. ln his [Jnioersal Algebra ( I B9B), Alfred North Whitehead says (p.
l1),
. . . Algebra does not depend on Arithmetic for the validity of its laws of
transformation. If there were such a dependence it is obvious that as soon
as algebraic expressions are arithmetically unintelligible all laws respecting
them must lose their validity. But the laws of Algebra, though suggested
by Arithmetic, do not depend on it. They depend entirely on the con-
ventions by which it is stated that certain modes ofgrouping the symbols
are to be considered as identical. This assigns certain properties to the
marks which form the symbols of Algebra.
Algebra is a logical development independent of meaning. " It is obvious

that we can take any marks we Iike and manipulate them according to any
rule we choose to assign " (p. 4). Whitehead does point out that such
arbitrary manipulations of symbols can be frivolous and only constructions to
which some meaning can be attached or which have some use are significant.
Geometry, too, cut its bonds to physical reality. As Hilbert pointed out
in his Grundlagen of 1899, geometry speaks of things whose ProPerties are
specified in the axioms. Though Hilbert referred only to the strategy by
which we must approach mathematics for the purpose of examining is
logical structure, he nevertheless supported and encouraged the view that
mathematics is quite distinct from the concepts and laws of nature.
9. Math. Ann.,2l, 1883, 563-64 : Ges. Abh.' 182.

LO32 MATHEMATTCS AS OF I9OO
4. The Loss d
Truth
The introduction and gradual acceptance ofconcepts that have no immediate
counterparts in the real world certainly forced the recognition that mathe-
matics is a human, somewhat arbitrary creation, rather than an idealization
o[the realities in nature, derived solely from nature. But accompanying this
recognition and indeed propelling its acceptance was a more profound
discovery-mathematics is not a body of truths about nature' The develop-
ment that raised the issue of truth was non-Euclidean geometry, though its
impact was delayed by the characteristic conservatism and closed-mindedness
of all but a few mathematicians. The philosopher David Hume (171l-76)
had already pointed out that nature did not conform to fixed patterns and
necessary laws; but the dominant view, expressed by Kant, was that the
properties of physical space were Euclidean. Even Legendre in his Eliments
de giomitrie of 179* still believed that the axioms of Euclid were sellevident
truths.
With respect to geometry, at least, the view that seems correct today was
first expressed by Gauss. Early in the nineteenth century he was convinced
that geometry was an empirical science and must be ranked with mechanics,
whereas arithmetic and analysis were a priori truths. Gauss wrote to Bessel
in 1830,10
According to my deepest conviction the theory of space has an entirely

different place in our a priori knowledge than that occupied by pure
arithmetic. There is lacking throughout our knowledge of the former the
complete conviction of necessity (also of absolute truth) which is charac-
teristic of the latter; we must add in humility, that if number is merely
the product of our mind, space has a reality outside our mind whose laws
we cannot a priori completely prescribe.
However Gauss seems to have had conflicting views, because he also ex-
pressed the opinion that all o[ mathematics is man-made. In a letter to
Bessel of November 21, l8l l, in which he speaks of functions of a complex
variable he says,ll "One should never lorget that the functions, like all
mathematical constructions, are only our own creations, and that when the
definition with which one begins ceases to make sense, one should not ask:
What is it, but what is it convenient to assume in order that it remain
significant ? "
Despite Gauss's views on geometry, most mathematicians thought there
were basic truths in it. Bolyai thought that the absolute truths in geometry
were those axioms and theorems common to Euclidean and hyperbolic
geometry. He did not know elliptic geometr-y, and so in his time still did not
10. Werke, 8,201.

ll. Werlro, 10, 363.
TIIE LOSS OF TRUTTI r033
appreciate that many of these common axioms were not common to all
geometries.
In his lB54 paper "On the Hypotheses Which Underlie Geometry,"
Riemann still believed that there were some propositions about space that
were a priori, though these did not include the assertion that physical space
is truly Euclidean. It was, however, locally Euclidean.
Cayley and Klein remained attached to the reality of Euclidean
geometry (see also Chap. 38, sec. 6). In his presidential address to the
British Association for the Advancement of Science,l2 Cayley said, ". . . not
that the propositions of geometry are only approximately true, but that they
remain absolutely nue in regard to that Euclidean sPace which has so long
been regarded as being the physical space ofour experience." Though they
themselves had worked in non-Euclidean geometries, they regarded the
latter as novelties that result when new distance functions are introduced in
Euclidean geometry. They failed to see that non-Euclidean is as basic and
as applicable as Euclidean geometry.
In the 1890s Bertrand Russell took up the question of what properties
of space are necessary to and are presupposed by experience. That is, ex-
perience would be meaningless ifany ofthese a priori properties were denied.
In his .Esray on the Foundations of Geometry (1897), he agrees that Euclidean
geometry is not a priori knowledge. He concludes, rather, that projective
geometry is a priori for all geometry, an understandable conclusion in view
of the importance of that subject around 1900. He then adds to projective
geometry as a priori the axioms common to Euclidean and all the non-
Euclidean geometries. The latter facts, the homogeneity of space, finite
dimensionality, and a concept of distance make measurement Possible. The
facts that space is three-dimensional and that our actual space is Euclidean
he considers to be empirical.
That the metrical geometries can be derived from projective geometry
by the introduction of a metric Russell regards as a technical achievement
having no philosophical significance. Metrical geometry is a logically sub-
sequent and separate branch of mathematics and is not a priori. With respect
to Euclidean and the several basic non-Euclidean geometries, he departs from
Cayley and Klein and regards all these geometries as being on an equal
footing. Since the only metric spaces that possess the above properties are
the Euclidean, hyperbolic, and single and double elliptic, Russell concludes
that these are the only possible metrical geometries, and of course Euclidean
is the only physically applicable one. The others are of philosophical
import'ance in showing that there can be other geometries. With hindsight it
is now possible to see that Russell had replaced the Euclidean bias by a pro-
jective bias.
12. Report of the Bit. lssn. /or thc Adtt. ol Sci., 1883, 3-37 : Coll, Math. Palers' ll, 429-59.
ro34 MATHEMATICS AS OF I9OO
Though mathematicians were slow to recognize the fact, clearly seen by

Gauss, that there is no assurance at all to the physical truth of Euclidean
geometry, they gradually came around to that view and also to the related
conviction of Gauss that the truth of mathematics resides in arithmetic and
therefore also in analysis. For example, Kronecker in his essay " Uber den
Zahlbegriff" (On the Number Concept)13 maintained the truth of the
arithmetical disciplines but denied it to geometry. Gottlob Frege, about
whose work we shall say more later, also insisted on the truth of arithmetic.
However, even arithmetic and the analysis built on it soon became
suspect. The creation of non-commutative algebras, notably quaternions and
matrices, certainly raised the question of how one can be sure that ordinary
numbers possess the privileged property of truth about the real world. The
attack on the truth of arithmetic came first from Helmholtz. After he had
insisted, in a famous essay,l{ that our knowledge of physical space comes
only from experience and depends on the existence of rigid bodies to serve,
among other purposes, as measuring rods, in his Ziihlen und Messaz (Counting
and Measuring, IBBT) he attacked the truths of arithmetic. He regards as
the main problem in arithmetic the meaning or the validity of the objective
application of quantity and equality to experience. Arithmetic itself may be
just a consistent account of the consequences of the arithmetical operations.
It deals with symbols and can be regarded as a game. But these symbols are
applied to real objects and to relations among them and give results about
real workings of nature. How is this possible? Under what conditions are the
numbers and operations applicable to real objects ? In particular, what is the
objective meaning of the equality of two objects and what character must
physical addition have to be treated as arithmetical addition ?
Helmholtz points out that the . applicability of numbers is neither an
accident nor proof of the truths of the laws of numbers. .Some kinds of ex-
perience suggest them and to these they are applicable. To apply numbers
to real objects, Helmholtz says, objects must not disappear, or merge with one
another, or divide in two. One raindrop added physically to another does
not produce two raindrops. Only experience can tell us whether the objects
of a physical collection retain their identity so that the collection has a
definite number of objects in it. Likewise, knowing when equality between
physical quantities can be applied also depends on experience. Any assertion
of quantitative equality must satisfy two conditions. If the objects are ex-
changed they must remain equal. Also, il object a equals c and object D
equals c, object a must equal object D. Thus we may speak ofthe equality of
weights and intervals of time, because for these objects equality can be
determined. But two pitches may, as far as the ear is concerned, equal an
fiir Math., l0l, 1887, 337-55 : Werke,3,2+9-74.

13. Jour.
14. Nachrichtcn Kin;g. Ges. der Wiss. zu Giitr,, 15, 1868, 193-221 : Wiss. Abh,,2, 618-39.
THE LOSS OF TR(.ITH IO35
intermediate one and yet the ear might distinguish the original two. Here
things equal to the same thing are not equal to each other. One cannot add
the values of electrical resistance connected in parallel to obtain the total
resistance, nor can one combine in any way the indices ol refraction o[
different media.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the view that all the axioms of
mathematics are arbitrary prevailed. Axioms were merely to be the basis for
the deduction ofconsequences. Since the axioms were no longer truths about
the concepts involved in them, the physical meaning of these concePts no
longer mattered. This meaning could, at best, be a heuristic guide when the
axioms bore some relation to reality. Thus even the concepts were severed
from the physical world. By 1900 mathematics had broken away from reality;
it had clearly and irretrievably lost its claim to the truth about nature, and
had become the pursuit of necessary consequences of arbitrary axioms about
meaningless things.
The loss of truth and the seeming arbitrariness, the subjective nature of
mathematical ideas and results, deeply disturbed many men who considered
this a denigration of mathematics. Some therefore adopted a mystical view
that sought to grant some reality and objectivity to mathematics. These
mathematicians subscribed to the idea that mathematics is a reality in
itsell, an independent body oftruths, and that the objects of mathematics are
given to us as are the objects of the real world. Mathematicians merely
di."o,r.. the concepts and their ProPerties. Hermite, in a letter to Stieltjes,r6
said, "I believe that the numbers and functions of analysis are not the
arbitrary product ofour minds; I believe that they exist outside ofus with the
same character of necessity as the objects of objective reality; and we find or
discover them and study them as do the physicists, chemists and zoologists"'
Hilbert said at the International Congress in Bologna in l928,ro "How
would it be above all with the truth ofour knowledge and with the existence
and progress of science if there were no truth in mathematics ? Indeed in
professional writings and public lectures there often aPpears today a skepti-
cism and despondency about knowledge; this is a certain kind of occultism
which I regard as damaging."
Godfrey H. Hardy (1577-1947), an outstanding analyst of the twentieth
ccntury, said in 1928,1? " Mathematical theorems are true or false; their
truth or lalsity is absolutely independent of our knowledge of them. ln some
sense, mathematical truth is part of objective reality." He expressed the same
view in his book A fuIathematician' s Apology (1967 ed., p. 123): "I believe that
mathematical reality lies outside us, that our function is to discover or observe
15. C. Hermirc-T. Sticltjcs Corrcspondanca, Gauthier-Villars, 1905, 2, p. 398.

16. Atti del Congruso, l, 1929, l4l : Grundlagcn dcr Gcomcltic,7th ed., p' 323'
l?. Mind,38, 1929, l-25.
r036 MATHEMATTCS AS OF r9OO
it and that the theorems which we describe grandiloquently as our 'creations,'

are simply the notes of our observations."
5. Matlumatics as the Study of Arbitrary Structures

The nineteenth-century mathematicians were primarily concerned with the
study of nature, and physics certainly was the major inspiration for the
mathematical work. The greatest men-Gauss, Riemann, Fourier, Hamilton,
Jacobi, and Poincard-and the less well-known men-Christoffel, Lipschitz,
Du Bois-Reymond, Beltrami, and hundreds of others-worked directly on
physical problems and on mathematical problems arising out of physical
investigations. Even the men commonly regarded as pure mathematicians,
Weierstrass, for example, worked on physical problems. In fact, more than in
any earlier century, physical problems supplied the suggestions and directions
for mathematical investigations, and highly complex mathematics was
created to master them. Fresnel had remarked that " Nature is not embar-
rassed by difficulties of analysis" but mathematicians were not deterred and
overcame them. The only major branch that had been pursued lor intrinsic
aesthetic satisfaction, at least since Diophantus' work, was the theory of
numbers.
However, in the nineteenth century for the first time, mathematicians
not only carried their work far beyond the needs of science and technology
but raised and answered questions that had no bearing on real problems.
The raison d'6trc of this development might be described as follows. The two-
thousand-year-old conviction that mathematics was the truth about nature
was shattered. But the mathematical theories now recognized to be arbitrary
had nevertheless proved useful in the study of nature. Though the existing
theories historically owed much to suggestions from nature, perhaps new
theories constructed solely by the mind might also prove useful in the
representation of nature. Mathematicians then should feel free to create
arbitrary structures. This idea was seized upon to justify a new freedom in
mathematical research. However, since a few structures already in evidence
by 1900, and many of those created since, seemed so artificial and so far
removed from even potential application, their sponsors began to delend
them as desirable in and fior themselves.
The gradual rise and acceptance of the view that mathematics should
embrace arbitrary structures that need have no bearing, immediate or
ultimate, on the study of nature led to a schism that is described today as
pure versus applied mathematics. Such a break from tradition could not but
generate controversy. We can take space to cite only a few of the arguments
on either side.
Fourier had written, in the preface to his Analgtical Theorg oJ Heat, "The
prolound study ol nature is the most fertile source of mathematical dis-
THE STUDY OF ARBITRARY STRUCTURES to37
coveries. This study offers not only the advantage ofa well-determined goal
but the advantage of excluding vague questions and useless calculations. It
is a means of building analysis itself and of discovering the ideas which matter
most and which science must always preserve. The fundamental ideas are
those which represent the natural happenings." He also stressed the applica-
tion ol mathematics to socially useful problems.
Though Jacobi had done first-class work in mechanics and astronomy,
he took issue with Fourier. l{e wrote to Legendre onJuly 2, 1830,t4 "1,;.
true that Fourier is of the opinion that the principal object of mathematics is
the public utility and the explanation ol natural phenomena; but a scientist
like him ought to know that the unique object ol science is the honor ofthe
human spirit and on this basis a question of [the theory of] numbers is worth
as much as a question about the planetary system. . .."
Throughout the century, as more men became disturbed by the drift
to pure mathematics, voices were raised in protest. Kronecker wrote to
Helmholtz, "The wealth of your practical experience with sane and interest-
ing problems will give to mathematics a new direction and a new impetus. , . .
One-sided and introspective mathematical speculation leads into sterile
fields."
Felix Klein, in his Mathematical Theorg oJ the Top, (1897, pp. 1-2) stated,
"It the great need of the present in mathematical science that the pure
is
science and those departments of physical science in which it finds its most
important applications should again be brought into the intimate association
which proved so fruitful in the works of Lagrange and Gauss." And Emile
Picard, speaking in the early part of this century (La Science modtme ct son
itat actuel, 1908), warned against the tendency to abstractions and pointless
problems.
Somewhat later, Felix Klein spoke out again.re Fearing that the freedom
to create arbitrary structures was being abused, he emphasized that arbitrary
structures are " the death of all science. The axioms of geometry are . . . not
arbitrary but sensible statements which are, in general, induced by space
perception and are determined as to their precise content by expediency."
To justify the non-Euclidean axioms Klein pointed out that visuali zation c-an
verify the Euclidean parallel axiom only within certain limits. On another
occasion he pointed out that " whoever has the privilege of freedom should
also bear responsibility." By " responsibility " Klein meant service in the
investigation of nature.
Despite the warnings, the trend to abstractions, to generalization of
existing results for the sake of generalization, and the pursuit of arbitrarily
chosen problems co'niinued. The reasonable need to study an entire class of
18. Ges. Werke, l, +5+-55.
19. Elementary Mathematics from an Aduanccd Standpoint, Macmillan, 1939; Dover (reprint),
1945, Vol. 2, p. 187.
IO38 MATTTEMATICS AS OF I9OO
problems in order to learn more about concrete cases and to abstract in

order to get at the essence ofa problem became excuses to tackle generalities
and abstractions in and for themselves.
Partly to counter the trend to generalization, Hilbert not only stressed
that concrete problems are the lifeblood of mathematics, but took the
trouble in 1900 to publish a list of twenty-three outstanding ones (see the
bibliography) and to cite them in a talk he gave at the Second International
Congress of Mathematicians in Paris. Hilbert's prestige did cause many men
to tackle these problems. No honor could be more avidly sought than solving
a problem posed by so great a man. But the trend to free creations, abstrac-
tions, and generalizations was not stemmed. Mathematics broke away from
nature and science to pursue its own course.
6. The Problem of Consistercg

Mathematics, from a logical standpoint, was by the end of the nineteenth
century a collection of structures each built on its own system of axioms. As
we have already noted, one of the necessary properties of any such structure
is the consistency of its axioms. As long as mathematics was regarded as the
truth about nature, the possibility that contradictory theorems could arise
did not occur; and indeed the thought would have been regarded as absurd.
When the non-Euclidean geometries were created, their seeming variance
with reality did raise the question of their consistency. As we have seen, this
question was answered by making the consistency ol the non'Euclidean
geometries depend uPon that of Euclidean geometry.
By the 1880s the realization that neither arithmetic nor Euclidean
geometry is true made the investigation of the consistency of these branches
imperative. Peano and his school began in the l890s to consider this problem.
He believed that clear tests could be devised that would settle it. However,
events proved that he was mistaken. Hilbert did succeed in establishing the
consistency of Euclidean geometry (Chap. 42, sec. 3) on the assumption that
arithmetic is consistent. But the consistency of the latter had not been
established, and Hilbert posed this problem as the second in the list he
presented at the Second International Congress in 1900; in his "Axiomatisches
Denken"20 he stressed it as the basic problem in the foundations of mathe-
matics, Many other men became aware of the importance of the problem.
In 1904 Alfred Pringsheim (1850-1941)21 emphasized that the truth
mathematics seeks is neither more nor less than consistency. We shall examine
in Chapter 5l the work on this problem.
2O. Ma,h. Ann.,78, 1918, 405-15 = Gcs. Abh., 145-56.

21. Jahrcs. &r Deut. Math.-Verefz, 13, 1904, 381.
BIBLIOGRAPHY ro39
7. A Glance Ahead
The pace of mathematical creation has expanded steadily since 1600, and
this is certainly true of the twentieth century. Most of the fields pursued in
the nineteenth century were further developed in the twentieth. However,
the details of the newer work in these fields would be of interest only to
specialists. We shall therefore limit our account of twentieth-century work
to those fields that first became prominent in this period. Moreover, we shall
consider only the beginnings ofthose fields. Developments ofthe second and
third quarters of this century are too recent to be properly evaluated. We
have noted many areas pursued vigorously and enthusiastically in the past,
which were taken by their advocates to be the essence of mathematics, but
which proved to be passing fancies or to have little consequential impact on
the course of mathematics. However confident mathematicians of the last
half-century may be that their work is of the utmost importance, the place
of their contributions in the history of mathematics cannot be decided at the
present time.
Biblio.qraftut
Fang, J. : Hilberl, Paideia Press, 1970. Sketches of Hilbert's mathematical work.
Hardy, G. H.: A Mathematician's Apology, Cambridge Univenity Press, 1940 and
1967.
Helmholtz, H. von: Counting and Measuring, D. Van Nostrand, 1930. Translation
of Zahlen und Messen : Wisscnschqftlichc Abhandlungcn,3, 356-91.
" Uber den Ursprung Sinn und Bedeutung der geometrischen Siitze";
English translation : " On the Origin and Significance of Geometrical
--: Axioms," in Helmholtz: Popalar Seicnlifu Lccturcs, Dovet (reprint), 1962, pp.
223-49. Also in James R. Newman: The World oJ Matlumalics, Simon and
Schuster, 1956, Vol. l, pp. 647-68. See also Helmholtz's Wisnnschdtlichc
A b handlungcn, 2, 640-60.
Hilbert, David: "Sur les problimes futurs des math6matiques," Conptcs Rendus du
Deuxilmc Congrls Intcrnational dcs Malhimaticicns, Gauthier-Villars, 1902,
58-l14. Also in German, in Nachrichtzn Kdnig. Gcs. dcr Wiss. zu Gdu., 19O0,
253-97, and, in Hilbert's Gesammcltc Abhandlungcn, 3, 290-329. English
translation in Amer. l[ath. Soc. Bull., 8, l90l12, 437-79.
Kle in, Felix : " Uber Arithmetisirung der l\{athematik," Gcs. Math. Abh.,2,23240.
English translation in Amcr. It[ath. Soc. Bull., 2, 189516, 241-49.
Pierpont, James: "On the Arithmetization of Mathematics," Ancr. Math. Soc. Bull.,
s, 1898/9,394-406.
Poincard, Henri: The Foundatio.ns of ,9cience , Science Press, 1913. See especially pp.
43-91.
Reid, Constance: Hilbert, Springer-Verlag, 1970. A biography.
4+
The Theory of Functions of
Real Variables
If Newton and Leibniz had thought that continuous functions

do not necessarily have a derivative-and this is the general
case-the differential calculus would never have been
created. EMrLE PTCARD
L. Tlu Oigins
The theory offunctions ofone or more real variables grew out ofthe attemPt
to understand and clarify a number ofstrange discoveries that had been made
in the nineteenth century. continuous but non-differentiable functions,
series of continuous functions whose sum is discontinuous, continuous
functions that are not piecewise monotonic, functions possessing bounded
derivatives that are not Riemann integrable, curves that are rectifiable but
not according to the calculus definition of prc length, and nonintegratle
functions thai are limits of sequences of integrable functions-all seemed to
contradict the expected behavior ol functions, derivatives, and integrals'
Another motivation for the further study of the behavior of functions came
from the research on Fourier series. This theory, as built up by Dirichlet,
Riemann, Cantor, Ulisse Dini (1S45-1918), Jordan, and other mathe-
maticians of the nineteenth century, was a quite satisfiactory instrument lor
applied mathcmatics. But the properties of the series, as thus far developed'
f.iied to give a theory that could satisfy the pure mathematicians' Unity,
.y--.try, and completeness of relation between function and series were
still wanting.
The research in the theory of functions emphasized the theory of the
integral because it seemed that most ol the incongruities could be resolved
by f,roadening that notion. Hence to a large extent this work may be
regarded as a direct continuation of the work of Riemann, Darboux, Du
Bois-Reymond, Cantor, and others (Chap. 40, sec. 4)'
ro4o
EARLY WORK ON CONTENT AND MEASURE ro41
2. The Stieltjes Integral

Actually the first extension of the notion of integral came from a totally
different class of problems than those just described. In 1894 Thomas Jan
Stieltjes (1856-94) published his " Recherches sur les fractions continues," l
a most original paper in which he started from a very particular question and
solved it with rare elegance. This work suggested problems of a completely
novel nature in the theory ofanalytic functions and in the theory offunctions
ofa real variable. In particular, in order to represent the limit ofa sequence
of analytic functions Stieltjes was obliged to introduce a new integral that
generalized the Riemann-Darboux concept.
Stieltjes considprs a positive distribution of mass along a line, a general-
ization of the point concept of density which, of course, had already been
used. He remarks, that such a distribution of mass is given by an increasing
function {(r) which specifies the total mass in the interval [0, x] forr > 0,
the discontinuities of { corresponding tomasses concentrated at a point.
For such a distribution of mass in an interval [4, 6] he formulates the Riemann
sums
+
)fG)(S@'*,) - d(",))
wherein the xo, *r, . . ., tr,tL ate a partition of fa, b] and f1 is within [*1, x,* t].
He then showed that when;[is continuous in fa, bf and the maximum sub-
interval of the partitions approaches 0, the sums approach a limit which he
denoted AV IJf*l @(*). Though he used this integral in his own work,
Stieltjes did not push further the integral notion itself, except that for the
interval (0, o) he defined
!," rul d6o) : ;,,t [,rat

aoal.
His integral concept was not taken up by mathematicians until much later,
when it did find many applications (see Chap. 47, sec.4).
3. Early Work on Content and Measure

Quite another line of thought led to a different generalization of the notion
of integral, the Llbesgue integral. The study of the sets of discontinuities of
functions suggested the question ofhow to measure the extent or "length" of
the set ofdiscontinuities, because the extent ofthese discontinuities determines
the integrability ofthe function. The theory ofcontent and later the theory of
l. Ann. Fac. Sci. de Toulouse, 8, 1894, J.l'122' and 9, 1895, A.l-47 = (Euwcs comllltcs,2,
402-559.
ro42 THE THEORY OF FUNCTIONS OF REAL VARIABLES
measure $/ere introduced to extend the notion oflength to sets of points that
are not full intervals of the usual straight line.
The notion of content is based on the following idea: Consider a set E
of points distributed in some manner over an interval [a, D]. To be loose for
the moment, suppose that it is possible to enclose or cover these points by
small subintervals of [c, D] so that the points of E are either interior to one
of the subintervals or at worst an endpoint. We reduce the lengths of these
subintervals more and more and add others if necessary to continue to
enclose the points of d while reducing the sum of the lengths of the sub-
intervals. The greatest lower bound of the sum of those subintervals that
cover points of E is called the (outer) content of E. This loose formulation
is not the definitive notion that was finally adopted, but it may serve to
indicate what the men were trying to do.
A notion of (outer) content was given by Du Bois-Reymond in his
Dh allgancinc Funktionentluorie (lBB2), Axel Harnack (lB5l-BB) in his Dre
Elancntt da Di.ffcrcntial- und Integralrechnang (lBBl), Otto Stolz,2 and Cantor.s
Stolz and Cantor also extended the notion of content to two and higher-
dimensional sets using rectangles, cubes, and so forth in place of intervals.
The use of this notion of content, which was unfortunately not satis-
factory in all respects, nevertheless revealed that there were nowhere dense
sets (that is, the set lies in an interval but is not dense in any subinterval of
that interval) of positive content and that functions with discontinuities on
such Eets were not integrable in Riemann's sense. Also there were functions
with bounded nonintegrable derivatives. But mathematicians of this time,
the 1880s, thought that Riemann's notion of the integral could not be
extended.
To overcome limitations in the above theory of content and to rigorize
the notion of area of a region, Peano (Applicazioni geomelriche del calcolo
itfinittsimalc, 1887) introduced a fuller and much improved notion of content.
He introduced an inner and outer content for regions. Let us consider two
dimensions. The inner content is the least upper bound of all polygonal
regions contained within the region.R and the outer content is the greatest
lower bound of all polygonal regions containing the region rt. If the inner
and outer content are equal, this common value is the area. For a one-
dimensional set the idea is similar but uses intervals instead of polygons.
Peano pointed out that ifl(x) is non-negative in [a, D] then
rb : li :
dx Ct@) u"d C"(R),
),f J"
where the first integral is the least upper bound of the lower Riemann sums
ol fon la, D] and the second is the greatest lower bound ofthe upper Riemann
2. Math. Ann.,23, 1884, 152-56.

3. Marh. Ann.,23, 1884, 453-a8 : Ges. Abh.,210-46.
EARLY WORK ON CONTENT AND MEASURE to43
sums and C1(ft) and C are the inner and outer content of the region ,R
"(R)
bounded above by the graph ofl Thus,lis integrable if and only ifR has
content in the sense that Cr(R) : C"(R).
Jordan made the most advanced step in the nineteenth-century theory
of content (itcndue). He too introduced an inner and outer content,a but
formulated the concePt somewhat more effectively. His definition for a set
ofpoints E contained in la, bf starts with the outer content. One covers E by
a finite set of subintervals of fa, bf such that each point of .E is interior to or an
endpoint of one of these subintervals. The greatest lower bound of the sum
of all such sets ofsubintervals that contain at least one point ofE is the outer
content of .8. The inner content olE is defined to be the least upper bound ol
the sum of the subintervals that enclose only points of E in [a, D]. If the inner
and outer content of E are equal, then E has content. The same notion was
applied by Jordan to sets in z-dimensional space excePt that rectangles and
the higher-dimensional analogues replace the subintervals. Jordan could now
prove what is called the additivity proPerty: The content of the sum of a
fnite number of disjoined sets with content is the sum of the contents of the
separate sets. This was not true for the earlier theories of content, except
Peano's.
Jordan's interest in content derived from the attemPt to clarify the
theory of double integrals taken over some plane region E. The definition
usually adopted was to divide the plane into squares rR,, by lines parallel to
the coordinate axes. This partition of the plane induces a partition of E
into E11's. Then, by definition,
I f@,il at : Lx'Lt;'o
lim ) f@,,y,)a(R,,),
JE
-'
where a(R,r) denotes the area of R11 and the sum is over all rR,, interior to E
and all l?,, that contain any points of E but may also contain points outside
ofE. For the integral to exist it is necessary to show that the rRt, that are not
entirely interior to E can be neglected or that the sum of the areas of the
R,, that contain boundary points ol E approaches 0 with the dimensions of
the R,r. It had been generally assumed that this was the case and Jordan
himself did so in the first edition of his Cours d'analyse (Yol.2, 1883). However
the discovery ofsuch peculiar curves as Peano's square-filling curve made the
mathematicians more cautious. If E has two-dimensional Jordan content,
then one can neglect the.Ri, that contain the boundary points ofE Jordan
was also able to obtain results on the evaluation of double integrals by
repeated integration.
The second edition of Jord an's Cours d'analyse (Vol. I, 1893) contains
Jordan's treatment of content and its application to integration. Though
4. Jour. de Math., (4),8, 1892, 69-99 = CEuatcst 4, +27-57,
roM TIIE THEORY OF FUNCTIONS OF REAL VARIABLES
superior to that of his predecessors, Jordan's definition of content was not

quite satisfactory. According to it an open bounded set does not necessarily
have content and the set of rational points contained in a bounded interval
does not have content.
The next step in the theory ofcontent was made by Borel. Borel was led
to study the theory, which he called measure, while working on the sets of
points on which series representing complex functions converge. His Legons
sur la thiorie des fonctions (1898) contains his first major work on the subject.
Borel discerned the defects in the earlier theories of content and remedied
thern.
Cantor had shown that every open set f-I on the line is the union of a
dcnumerablcfamily of open intervals, no fwo having a point in common. f n
place of approaching U by enclosing it in a finite set of intervals Borel,
using Cantor's result, proposed as the measure ofa bounded open set f,/ the
sum of the lengths of the component intervals. He then defined the measure
of the sum of a countable number of disjoined measurable sets as the sum ol
the individual measures and the measure of the set A - B, if A and. B are
measurable and B is contained in A, as the difference of the measures. With
these definitions he could attach a measure to sets formed by adding any
countable number of disjoined measurable sets and to the difference ofany two
measurable sets ,l4 and ,B if ,4 contains .8. He then considered sets of measure 0
and showed that a set of measure greater than 0 is non-denumerable.
Borel's theory of measure was an improvement over Peano,s and
Jordan's notions ofcontent, but it was not the final word, nor did he consider
its application to integration.
4. The Lebesgue Integral

The generalization of measure and the integral that is now considered
definitive was made by Henri Lebesgue (1875-1941), a pupil of Borel and
a professor at the Colldge de France. Guided by Borel's ideas and also by
those ofJordan and Peano, he first presented his ideas on measure and the
integral in his thesis, " Int6grale, longueur, aire."5 His work superseded the
nineteenth-century creations and, in particular, improved on Borel's theory
of measure.
Lebesgue's theory ofintegration is based on his notion of measure ofsets
ofpoints and both ideas apply to sets in n-dimensional space. For illustrative
purposes we shall consider the one-dimensional case. Let E be a set ofpoints
i.n a < x < D. The points of ,E can be enclosed as interior points in a finite
or countablg i4finite set ofintervals dr, dr, . .. lying in la, bl. (The endpoints of
fa, bf can be endpoints of a dr.) It can be shown that the set ofintervals {d,}
5. Anuli. di MaL, (3),7, 1902,231-59.

THE LEBESGUE INTEGRAL IO45
can be replaced by a set of non-overlapping intervals 3r, Er, . . . such that

every point of E is an interior point of one of the intervals or the common
endpoint of two adjacent intervals. Let ) E, denote the sum ofthe lengths 6,.
The lower bound ol) 6, for all possible sets {6,} is called the exterior measure
of .E and denoted by n"(E) . The interior measure m,(E) of E is defined to be
the exterior measure of the set C (E), that is, the complement of .E in la, bl
or the points of a < x < D not in .O.
Now one can prove a number of subsidiary results, including the fact
that mt(E) < m"(E). The set E is defined to be measurable il nt(E) : m"(E)
and the measure m(E) is taken to be this common value. Lebesgue showed
that a union of a countable number of measurable sets that are pairwise'
disjoined has as its measure the sum of the measures o[ the component sets.
Also all Jordan measurable sets are Lebesgue measurable and the measure
is the same. Lebesgue's notion of measure differs from Borel's by the adjunc-
tion ofa part ofa set of measure 0 in the sense ofBorel. Lebesgue also called
attention to the existence of nonmeasurable sets.
His next significant notion is that of a measurable function. Let.E be a
bounded measurable set on the x-a*is. The function rf(r), defined on all
points of .8, is said to be measurable in E if the set ol points of E for which
-f(x) > A is measurable for every constant l.
Finally we arrive at Lebesgue's notion of an integral. Let f(x) be a
bounded and measurable function on the measurable set E contained in
la, bl. Let A and B be the greatest lower and least upper bounds of,f(r) on
E. Divide the interval [A, B) (on the y-axis) into ll partial intervals
lA, t]J, ltL, t'1,. . ., u"_" Bl,
with I : lo and B : ln. Let a, be the set of points of E for which
l,-, < -f(*) I l,,r : 1,2,.,.,n. Then €t02,...,ct are measurable sets.
Form the sums S and s where
s:f 1n1,,1,
The sums S and s have a greatest lower bound J and a least upper bound d
respectively. Lebesgue showed- that for bounded measurable functions
I : J, and this common value is the Lebesgue integral ofrt(r) on E. The
notation is
I: dx.
)"f(x)
If E consists of the entire interval a < x < 6, then we use the notation
il -f @) a*, but the integral is understood in the Lebesgue sense. If/(x) is
Lebesgue integrable and the value of the integral is finite, then..f(.r) is said
to be summable, a term introduced by Lebesgue. An f(x) that is Riemann
r046 THE THEORY OF FUNCTIONS OF REAL VARIABLES
integrable on la, b) is Lebesgue integrable but not necessarily conversely. If

;f(.r) is integrable in both senses, the values of the two integrals are the same.
The generality of the Lebesgue integral derives from the fact that a
Lebesgue integrable function need not be continuous almost everywhere
(that is, except on a set of measure 0). Thus the Dirichlet function, which is
I for rational values of r and 0 for irrational values of x in la, bl, is totally
discontinuous and though not Riemann integrable is Lebesgue integrable.
In this case lltel a* o. :
The notion of the Lebesgue integral can be extended to more general
functions, for example unbounded functions. If/(x) is Lebesgue integrable
but not bounded in the interval of integration, the integral converges
absolutely. Unbounded functions may be Lebesgue integrable but not
Riemann integrable and conversely,
For practical purposes the Riemann integral suffices. In fact Lebesgue
showed (I*gons sur I'intigration et la recherche des fonctions primitiues, 1904) that
a bounded function is Riemann integrable if and only if the points ol dis-
continuity form a set of measure 0. But for theoretical work the Lebesgue
integral affords simplifications. The new theorems rest on the countable
additivity of Lebesgue measure as contrasted with the finite additivity of
Jordan content.
To illustrate the simplicity of theorems using Lebesgue integration, we
have the result given by Lebesgue himself in his thesis. Suppose zr(*),
uz!), . .. are summable functions on a measurable set E and )f u"(x)
converges to,l'(.r). Then/(*) is measurable. If in addition s,(*) : )j a,(*) is
uniformly bounded (lr"(*) I < .B for all x in ,E and all z), then it is a theorem
that;t(r) is Lebesgue integrable on [a, D] and
fb tb
I JQ) dx : n-d,
Jo
lim I
Ja
s,(x) dx.
If we were working with Riemann integrals we would need the additional

hypothesis that the sum of the series is integrable; this case for the Riemann
integral is a theorem due to Cesare Arzeli (1847-1912).6 Lebesgue made his
theorem the cornerstone in the exposition of his theory in his Legons sur
l'inligration .
The Lebesgue integral is especially useful in the theory of Fourier series
and most important contributions were made in this connection by
Lebesgue himself.? According to Riemann, the Fourier coefficients an and
Dn of a bound.ed and integrable lunction tend to 0 as n becomes infinite.
Lebesgue's generalization states that
r,11
//(,){X"l*d*
: o,
6. Atti l,
della Accad. dei Linrci, Rendiconti, (+), 1885, 321-26, 532-37, 566-69,
7. 8.g., Ann. de l'Ecole Norm, Sup., (3), 20, 1903, 453-85.
THE LEBESGUE INTEGRAL to47
where;[(x) is any function, bounded or not, that is Lebesgue integrable. This

fact is now relerred to as the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma.
In this same paper ol 1903 Lebesgue showed that ifrf is a bounded
function represented by a trigonometric series, that is,
f @) : ?+i t+ cos 2'r + bnsin nx),

then the an and, bn ." aolrr..lefficients. In 1905s Lebesgue gave a new
sufficient condition fior the convergence of the Fourier series to a function
f(x) that included all previously known conditions.
Lebesgue also showed (Legons sur les sirics trigonomitriques, 1906, p. 102)
that term-by-term integration of a Fourier series does not depend on the
uniform convergence of the series to/(*) itself. What does hold is that
tx .<- I
(*) dx : ao(x + zr) + /;(a"sinnx * Dn (cos nT - cos ntc)),
)_,"f
where x is any point in [-zr, zr], for any;f(x) that is Lebesgue integrable,
whether or not the original series for;f(x) converges. And the new series
converges uniformly to the left side of the equation in the interval l-n, rl.
Further, Parseval's theorem that
)1", ttan' dx : 2az + ) to?, + t?1

1
holds for any (x) whose square is Lebesgue integrable in [ -zr,

f r) (Lcgons,
1906, p. 100). Then Pierre Fatou (lB7B-1929) provede that
I r, :
)1" ,ruls<a
d,x 2aoao + ) @^"^ + b,P,),
where a,, and 6n, and cn and Bn are the Fourlier coefficients tor/('t) and g(r)
whose squares are Lebesgue integrable in [-2, zr]. Despite these advances
in the theory of Fourier series, there is no known ProPel'ty of an f(x)
Lebesgue integrable in [-zr, rr] that is necessary and sufficient for the con-
vergence of its Fourier series.
Lebesgue devoted most of his efforts to the connection between the
notions of integral and of primitive functions (indefinite integrals). When
Riemann introduced his generalization ofthe integral, the question u'as posed
whether the correspondence between definite integral and primitive function,
valid for continuous functions, held in the more general case. But it is
possible to give examples of functions;f integrable in Riemann's sense and
8. Math. .4ar.,61, 1905, 251-80.

9. Acta Math., 30, 1906,335-400.
ro4B THE THEORY OF FUNCTIONS OF REAL VARIABLES
such that IIttD a, does not have a derivative (not even a right or leflt
derivative)'it certain points' Conversely Volterra showed in l88l 10 that a
function .F'(x) can have a bounded derivative in an interval l that is not
integrable in Riemann's sense over the interval. By a subtle analysis Lebesgue
shoied that if/is integrable in his sense in fa, bl, then F (x) : I: "f (t) dt has a
derivative equal to;f(.r) almost everywhere, that is, except on a set of
measure zero (Legons sur l'intlgration). Conversely, ifa function g is differenti-
able in la, bf and if its derivative g' : f is bounded, then;f is Lebesgue
integrabL urd th" formula s@) - s@): Jitttl /t holds. Ilowever, as
Lebesgue established, the situation is much more complex ifg' is not bounded'
In this case g' is not necessarily integrable, and the first problem is to
characterize the functions g for which g' exists almost everywhere and is
11
integrable. Limiting himself to the case where one of the derived numbers
ofg is finite everywhere, Lebesgue showed that g is necessarily a function of
bounded variation (Chap. 40, sec. 6). Finally Lebesgue established (in the
1904 book) the reciprocal result. A function g ofbounded variation admits a
derivative almost everywhere and g' is integrable. But one does not neces-
sarily have
(1) s@) - s@) : [- s'Q) dt;
the difference between the two members of this equation is a nonconstant

function of bounded variation with derivative zero almost everywhere' As
for the functions of bounded variation g for which ( 1) does hold, these have
the following property: The total variation ofg in an oPen set U (that is, the
sum of the total variations ofg in each of the connected components of U)
tends to 0 with the measure of U. These functions were called absolutely
continuous by Giuseppe Vitali (1875-1932), who studied them in detail.
Lebesgue's work also advanced the theory of multiple integrals' Under
his definition of the double integral, the domain of functions for which the
double integral can be evaluated by repeated integration is extended'
Lebesgue gave a result in his thesis of 1902, but the better result was given
by Guido Fubini ( 1879-1 943) :r2 If f (x, y) is summable over the measurable
set G, then
(") .f (r, y) as a function of x and as a function ofy is summable for almost all
g and, x, respectively;
lO. Gior. di Mat,, 19, 1881, 333-72 : OPete Mat., l, 16-48'
ll. The two right derived numbers ofg are the two lirnis,
I*.*t'!l#@',I'*.i:l'!l#'
The two left derived numbers are defined similarly.
12. Arti della Acead. dei Lincei, Rendiconti, (5), 16, 1907, 608-14'
ri
TrrE LEBEscuE TNTEGRAL lo49
(b) the set of points (ro,yo) for which either;f(x, g) orJ@o,y) is not sum-
mable has measure 0;
r" : I au(!ra,a *) : I a.(!ru,a a\

(")
! j;a,a
where the outer integrals are taken over the set of points y (respectively
.r) for which;f(x, y) as a function ofr (as a function ofy, respectively) are
summable.
Finally, in multiple integrals that

191013 Lebesgue arrived at results for
extended those for the derivatives of single integrals. He associated with a
function;f integrable in every compact region of R', the set function (as
opposed io frrr"tior,. of numerical variables) F(E) : Irf@) ar (x represents
z coordinates) defined for each integrable domain E of R. This concept
generalizes the indefinite integral. He observed that the function F possesses
two properties :
(1) It is completely additive; that is, F()f E") : >f F(E ) where the E,,
are pairwise disjoined measurable sets.
(2) It is absolutely continuous in the sense that F(E) tends to 0 with the
measure of E,
The essential part of this paper of Lebesgue was to show the converse of this
proposition, that is, to define a derivative ofF(E) at
point P of z-dimensional
a
space. Lebesgue arrived at the following theorem: Il F(E) is absolutely
continuous and additive, then it possesses a finite derivative almost every-
where, and F is the indefinite integral of that summable function which is the
derivative ofF where it exists and is finite but is otherwise arbitrary at the
remaining points.
The principal tool in the proof is a covering theorem due to Vitali,l4
which remains fundamental in this area of integration' But Lebesgue did not
stop there. He indicated the possibility ofgeneralizing the notion offunctions
of bounded variation by considering functions F(E) where .E is a measurable
set, the functions being completely additive and such that )" lF(E ) |
remains bounded for every denumerable Partition ol .E into measurable

subsets .En. It would be possible to cite many other theorems of the calculus
that have been generalized by Lebesgue's notion of the integral.
Lebesgue's work, one of the great contributions of this century, did win
approval but, as usual, not without some resistance. We have already noted
(Chap. 40, sec. 7) Hermite's objections to functions without derivatives. He
tried to prevent Lebesgue from publishing a "Note on Non-Ruled Surfaces
13. Ann. de I'Ecole Norm. Srf., (3), 27, l9l0' 361-450.

14. Atti Accad. Toriw, 43, 1908,22946.
r o5o THE TTIEORY OF FUNCTIONS OF REAL VARIABLES
Applicable to the Plane," 15 in which Lebesgue treated non-differentiable

surfaces. Lebesgue said many years later in his y'y'ollcc (p. 14, see bibliog-
raphy),
Darboux had devoted his Mimoire of 1875 to integration and to functions
without derivativesl he therefore did not experience the same homor as
Hermite. Nevertheless I doubt whether he ever entirely forgave my
"Notc on Applicable Surfaces." He must have thought that those who
make themselves dull in this study are wasting their time instead of
devoting it to useful research.
Lebesgue also said (Noticc, p. l3),
To many mathematicians I became the man of the functions without
derivatives, although I never at any time gave myself completely to the
study or consideration of such functions. And since the fear and horror
which Hermite showed was felt by almost everybody, whenever I tried
to take part in a mathematical discussion there would always be an
analyst who would say, " This won't interest you; we are discussing
functions having derivatives." Or a geometer would say it in his language:
"We're discussing surfaces that have tangent planes."
5. Gmtralizntions
We have already indicated the advantages oflebesgue integration in general-
izing older results and in formulating neat theorems on series. In subsequent
chapters we shall meet additional applications of Lebesgue's ideas. The
immediate developments in the theory of functions were many extensions of
the notion of integral. Of these we shall merely mention one by Johann
Radon (1887-1956), which embraces both Stieltjes's and Lebesgue's integral
and is in fact known as the Lebesgue-Stieldes integral'16 The generalizations
cover not only broader or different notions of integrals on point sets of n-
dimensional Euclidean space but on domains of more general spaces such
as spaces of functions. The applications of these more general concepts are
now found in the theory of probability, spectral theory, ergodic theory, and
harmonic analysis (generalized Fourier analysis).
Bibliographg
Borel, Emile: Notitc sur bs traaaux scitnlifques de M. Emilc Borel,Znd ed., Gauthier-
Villars, 1921.
Bourbaki, Nicolas: Elhrunts d'histoirc de malMmatiques, Hermann, 1960, pp. 246-59.
Collingwood, E. F.: " Emile Borel," Jour. Lon' Math.Soc.,34, 1959, 488-512.
15. Con!. Rend., 128, 1899, 1502-05'

16. Sitzungsber. der Akad. der Wisr. Wien, 122, Abt. IIa, 1913, 1295-1438.
r05 r
FrCchet, M.: "La Vie et l'cuvre d'Emile Borel," L'Enseignemcnt Matlunatiqu, (2),
ll, 1965, l-94.
Hawkins, T. W., Jr. : Lebesguc's Tluory oJ Integration: Ik Origins and Deaehpnenl,
University of Wisconsin Press, 1970, Chaps. 't-6.
Hildebrandt, T. H. : " On Integrals Related to and Extensions of the Lebesgue
Integral," Amer. Math. Soc. Bull.,24, 1918, ll3-77.
Jordan, Camille: (Euvres, 4 vols., Gauthier-Villars, 196l-64.
Lebesgue, Henri: Measwc awl the Inlegral, Holden-Day, 1966, pp. 176-94. Trans-
lation of the French Ia Mesurc des grandeurs,
Noticc sur les traoaux scicntifqucs dc M. Henri l*besguc, Edouard Privat, 1922.
Itgons sur I'inligration et la rcchtrclu des Jonctions friml'ldza.r, Gauthier-Villars,
1904,2nd ed., 1928.
McShane, E. J.: " Integrals Devised for Special Purposes," Aner. Math. Soc. Bull.,
69, 1963,597-627.
Pesin, Ivan M.: Classical and Modern Integration Thcorizs, Academic Press, 1970.
Plancherel, Michel: " Le Ddveloppement de la thdorie des sdries trigonomdtriques
dans le dernier quart de sihcle," L'Enscignzmcnl Mathimatiquc, 24, 1924125,
t9-58.
Riesz, F.: " L'Evolution de la notion d'intCgrale depuis Lebesgue," Annahs dc
I' Instilut Fowin, l, 1949,2942.
+5
Integral Equations
Nature is not embarrassed by difficulties of analysis,

AUGUSTIN FRESNEL
l. Introduction
An integral equation is an equation in which an unknown function appears
under an integral sign and the problem of solving the equation is to deter-
mine that function. As we shall soon see, some problems of mathematical
physics lead directly to integral equations, and other problems, which lead
fust to ordinary or Partial differential equations, can be handled more
expeditiously by converting them to integral equations. At first, solving
integral equations was described as inverting integrals. The term integral
equations is due to Du Bois-Reymond.l
As in other branches of mathematics, isolated problems involving
integral equations occurred long before the subject acquired a distinct
status and methodology. Thus Laplace in 17822 considered the integral
equation for g(t) given by
(r) /(.t) : e-*tg(t) dt.

I--
As equation (l) now stands, it is called the Laplace transform of g(l).
Poisson 3 discovered the expression for g(t), namely,
I fa+ 16
c(,) : *,01"-,-
e.f(x) dx
for large enough a. Another of the noteworthy results that really belong to
the history ol integral equations stems from Fourier's famous I B I I paPer on
the theory ol heat (Chap. 28, sec. 3). Flere one finds
f@) : I: cos (xt)u(t) dt
l. Jour. far Math., 103, 1888, 228.

2. Min. de l'Acad. des Sci., Paris, 1782, l-88, pub. 1785, and 1783, 423-67, pub' 1786 :
(Euures, 10,209-91, p. 236 in particular.
3. Jour. de I'Ecole Poly', 12, 1823, l-l+4,249-4.03.
r o52
INTRODUCTION ro53
Figure 45. I
and the inversion formula
u(t) _21*
-;J" cos (xt)f(x) dx.
The first conscious direct use and solution of an integral equation go

back to Abel. In two of his earliest published papers, the fust published in
an obscure journal in 1823a and the second published in the Journal fiir
Mathematik,s Abel considered the following mechanics problem: A particle
starting at P slides down a smooth curve (Fig' a5.l) to the point O. The curve
lies in a vertical plane. The velocity acquired at O is independent ofthe shape
ofthe curve but the time required to slide from P to O is not. If (f, 1) are the
coordinates of any point Q between P and, O and s is the arc OQ, then the
velocity of the particle at Q is given by
ds
dt
: -tt$6 -4
where g is the gravitational constant. flence
-l I la ds
"
,
-- \/4J, {-*- g
-
Now s can be expressed in terms of f. Suppose s is a((). Then the whole time
-.
of descent T frorr P to O is given by
.rt_\ I l" a'(t) dg .

.tt_42glo.1/_a_6 -
The time Tclearly depends upon x for any curve. The problem Abel set was,
given 7as a function of x, to find o(f). If we introduce
f(x) : t/-zg T1x1
4. Magazin for Naturwidenskabernc, l, 1823 : (Euttres, l,ll-27.

5. Jour. fir Math, l, 1826, 153-57 : (Euares, 1,97-101.
to54 INTEGRAL EqUATIONS
the problem becomes to determine a from the equation
Jk):l.$aE.
Jo{x-E -
Abel obtained the solution
,rr) :J' {9LE

_ -1"
His methods-he gave two-were special and not worth noting'
Actually Abel undertook to solve the more general problern
(2) r@):l:#%' o<r<r

and obtained
,@ :"i":- LI" €g#_

Liouville, who worked independently of Abel, solved special integral
equations from lB32 on.6 A more significant step by Liouville? was to show
how the solution of certain differential equations can be obtained by solving
integral equations. The differential equation to be solved is
(3) g'*Lpz-o(*)lY:A
over the interval o < x 3 b; p is a parameter. Let u(x) be the particular
solution that satisfies the initial conditions
(4) u(a):1, u'(a) : g.
This function will also be a solution of the nonhomogeneous equation

Y'+PsY:o(x)u(x).
Then by a basic result on ordinary differential equations,
(s) z(*) :66s p(x - a) *'-l' "G)sin

p(r - t)u(€) dt.
Thus ifwe can solve this integral equation we shall have obtained that
solution ofthe differential equation (3) that satisfies the initial conditions (4).
Liouville obtained the solution by a method of successive substitutions
attributed to Carl G. Neumann, whose work Unterruthungen iiber das logarith'
misclu und Newton'sche Potential (1877) came thirty years later' We shall not
describe Liouville's method because it is practically identical with the one
given by Volterra, which is to be described shortly.
6. Jour. de l'Ecole Polg., 13, 1832, l-69.
7. Jout. de Math.,2, 1837, 16-35,
INTRODUCTION r055
The integral equations treated by Abel and Liouville are of basic types.
Abel's is of the form
(6) f@) : I. K@, {)u({) d(,

and Liouville's of the form
(7) u(x) :f(x) + 16, t)u(t) dt.

J*
In both of these;t(x) and r( (x, f) are known, and z(() is the function to be
determined. The terminology used today, introduced by Hilbert, refers to
these equations as the first and second kind, resPectively, and r((x, f) is
called the kernel. As stated, they are also referred to as Volterra's equations,
whereas when the upper limit is a fixed number D, they are called Fredholm's
equations. Actually the Volterra equations are special cases, respectively, of
Fredholm's because one can always take K(x, €) : 0 for f > x and then
regard the Volterra equations as Fredholm equations. The special case ofthe
equation of the second kind in which /(x) : 0 is called the homogeneous
equation.
By the middle of the nineteenth century the chief interest in integral
equations centered around the solution of the boundary-value problem
associated with the potential equation
(B) Lu: uxx * uuo:O.

The equation holds in a given plane area that is bounded by some curve C.
If the boundary value of z is some function;f(s) given as a function of arc
length s along C, then a solution ofthis potential problem can be represented
by
u(x, y) : tos -] ds,

*, [ -
" ^,
wherein r(s; tt,y) is the distance from a point.r to any point ('t, y) in the
interior or boundary and p(s) is an unknown function satisfying for I : (x, y)
onC
(e) r(i : *["p(r)rog *,.a*

This is an integral equation ofthe first kind for p(t). Alternatively, ifone takes
as a solution of (B) with the same boundary condition
a(x, v) :{ ! oot *("r ffi1 o',

"
r056 INTEGRAL EqUATIONS
where 0l0n denotes the normal derivative to the boundary, then {(s) must
satisfy the integral equation
(10)
"r@
: root + Luf.olt fi("gfr:i).,
an integral equation of the second kind. These equations were solved by
Neumann for convex areas in lrris (Jntersttchunge, and later publications.
Another problem of partial differential equations was tackled through
integral equations. The equation
(ll) Az * lu:"f(*,y)
in the study of wave motion when the time dependence of the corre-
arises
sponding hyperbolic equation
I
Lu-iuu:f@,y),
usually taken to be e-''t, is eliminated. It was known (Chap. 28, sec. 8) that
the homogeneous case of (11) subject to boundary conditions has nontrivial
solutions only for a discrete set of l-values, called eigenvalues or character-
istic values. Poincar6 in 18948 considered the inhomogeneous case (11) with
complex I. He was able to produce a function, meromorphic in tr, which
represented a unique solution of (l l) for any tr which is not an eigenvalue,
and whose residues produce eigenfunctions for the homogeneous case, that
is, when.,/ : Q.
On the basis of these results, Poincard in 1896e considered the equation
u(x) lo x@,s1u1y1dy :f(x),

+ I Jo
which he derived from (11), and affirmed that the solution is a meromorphic
function of l. This result was established by Fredholm in a paper we shall
consider shortly.
The conversion of differential equations to integral equations, which is
illustrated by the above examples, became a major technique for solving
initial- and boundary-value problems of ordinary and partial differential
equations and was the strongest impetus for the study of integral equations.
2. The Beginning of a General Theory

Vito Volterra (1860-1940), who succeeded Beltrami as professor ol mathe-
matical physics at Rome, is the first of the founders of a general theory of
8. Rendiconli del Circolo Matematixo di Palermo,8, 1894, 57-lj5 : C4uures,9, t23-96.
9. Acta Math., 20, 1896-97, 59-142 : (Euarcs, 9, 202-72. See also the Hellinger and
Toeplitz reference in the bibliography, p. 1354.
THE BECTNNTNO OF A GENERAL THEORY rO57
integral equations. He wrote papers on the subject from 1884 on and prin-
cipal ones in 1896 and l897.1o Volterra contributed a method of solving
integral equations of the second kind,
(12) -f(,) : d(,) + I' *$,,lOtl dt

wherein {(.r) is unknown and K(.r, ,) : 0 for I >J, Volterra wrote this
equation as
,f(,) : C(") + [" x6, t161t1 dt.
His method of solution was to let
,(,) : -J, "U, t)f(t) dt

(13)
,G) : -l *r', t)Jn-lt) dt
"
and take {(s) to be
(14) C(,):,f(,) +>"f,(').

For his kernel r((s, t) Volterra was able to prove the convergence of (14),
and if one substitutes (la) in (12), one can show that it is a solution. This
substitution gives
d(,) :-f(r) - lb t)f(t) dt .f f Kg,r)K(r,t)f(t)drdt +-.-,

J, "(r,
which can be written in the form
(15) d(,) :,rG) + Jn r-1,, t)f7) dt,
where the kernel r( (later called the solving kernel or resolvent by Hilbert) is
rt(s, t) : lb
-r(s, t) * J. ((r, r)K(r, t) dr
-f f Kg,r)K(r, w)K(u, t) dr dw *....

10. Atti delld Accad. dci Lituci, Rendicon r,(5),5, 1896, 177-85,289-300; A,,i Accdd. Torino, Sl'
1896, 3l l-23, 40(H, 557-67, 69!708; Annali di Mat., (2),25,1897,139-78; all are in his
OPere matematit lu, 2, 2 1 6-3 13.
ro58 INTEGRAL EqUATIONS
Equation (15) is the representation obtained earlier for a particular integral

equation by Liouville and credited to Neumann. Volterra also solved
integral equations ofthe first kind/(s) : IlXtr, s)$(x) dx by reducing them
to equations of the second kind.
In 1896 Volterra observed that an integral equation ofthe first kind is a
limiting form of a system of z linear algebraic equations in z unknowns as z
becomes infinite. Erik Ivar Fredholm (1866-1927), professor of mathematics
at Stockholm, concerned with solving the Dirichlet problem, took up this
idea in l900rr and used it to solve integral equations ofthe second kind, that
is, equations of the form (12), without, however, the restriction on .I((.r, t).
We shall write the equation Fredholm tackled in the form
(16) u(x) :f(x) + rJ" r1r, €)u(€) d€,

though the parameter I was not explicit in his work. However, what he did
is more intelligible in the light of later work if we exhibit it. To be faithful
to Fredholm's formulas, one should set ) : I or regard it as implicitly
involved in r(.
Fredholm divided the *-interval [a, D] into z equal parts by the points
41 x1 : d * E,rr: 4 + 26r"',xa: a + n6: b.
He then replaced the definite integral in (16) by the sum
(17) u,(x):f(x) + ) rr1x, x,)u*(x,)6.

,=1
Now equation (17) is supposed to hold for all values ofr in [4,6]. Hence it
should hold for r : ,r, *2, . . ., xr,.This gives the system of n equations
,l
(18) -2uQ,,x1)u^(x,)b * unQ) :J'@,), i: r,2,"',n.

!=r
This system is a set of z nonhomogeneous lineal equations for determining
the z unknowns rzn(xr), un(xr), , , . , un}c),
In the theory of linear equations the following result was known : If the
matrix
* at Qtz Ots aln
,:ll. azr | *azz azs a2r,
attL aas | * ann
ll. Acta Math.,27, 1903, 365-90.

THE BEGINNING OF A GENERAL THEORY ro59
then the determinant D(z) of S, has the following expansion:12

l1
D(n):ta rtL a,,,, + *
+i l:,,
t1 Z,l::,',',,, "',,,1
-l'nl Ls
tt, .... rrL
where rr, rz,,..,rn run independently over all the values from I to z. By
expanding the determinant of the coefficients in ( I 8), and then letting n
become infinite, Fredholm obtained the determinant
(rs) D(l) : r - fb K(t,,t)dt,

^J,
. r,tr dtz -
|x[;:L] Xii::,';ildt,
This he called the determinant of ( l6) or of the kernel K. Likewise, by con-
sidering the collactor ol the element in the yth row and pth column of the
determinant of the coefficients in (lB) and letting n become infinite, Fredholm
obtained the function
(20) D(x, g, l) : - ^,l"lXi;'\ f3,:],1",

AK(x,y)
I K(x,s) K(*, t) K(x, t,) I
+ I:J:l*,r,'u, K((,,
(,) x(E,' il)l,o,dtr-"'.
lK(t,,y) K(t,, €,) K(t,, il)l
Fredholm called D(r, y, l) the first minor of the kernel K because it plays
the role analogous to first minors in the case of z linear equations in z un-
knowns. He also called the zeros of the integral analytic function D(f) the
roots of r((.t,y). By applying Cramer's rule to the system of linear equations
(18) and by letting z become infinite, Fredholm inGrred the form of the
solution of ( 16). He then proved that it was correct by direct substitution and
could assert the following results: If l is not one of the roots of r(, that is, if
D(A) + 0, (16) has one and,only one (continuous) solution, namely,
(21) u(x,t) :f(x) . ds.

I:',+#.f@)
Further, if l is a root of iK(,r,y), then (16) has either no continuous solution
or an infinite number of them.
12. A fine exposition can be found in Gerhard Kowalewski, Integalglcithungcn, Walter dc
Gruyter, 1930, pp. l0l-34.
1060 INTEGRAL EQUATIONS
Fredholm obtained further results involving the relation between the

homogeneous equation
(22) n(x) : ) lo x@, t)u6) at
and the inhomogeneous equation (16). It is almost evident from (21) that
when I is not a root ofr( the only continuous solution of (22) is u = 0. Hence
he considered the case when tr is a root of r(. Let tr : trr be such a root. Then
(22) has the infinite number of solutions
crur(x) + crur(x) + -..1 cnu,(x),
where the rr's are arbitrary constants; the ur,u2,. . .,un, called principal
solutions, are linearly independent; and n depends upon lr. The quantity z
is called the index of ,\1 [which is not the multiplicity of trt as a zero of D(])].
Fredholm was able to determine the index of any root ,\, and to show that the
index can never exceed the multiplicity (which is always finite). The roots
of D(f) : 0 are called the characteristic values of K(x, y) and the set ofroots
is called the spectrum. The solutions of (22) corresponding to the character-
istic values are called eigenfunctions or characteristic functions.
And now Fredholm was able to establish what has since been called the
Fredholm alternative theorem. In the case where I is a characteristic value
offf not only does the integral equation (22) have z independent solutions
but the associated or adjoint equation which has the transposed kernel,
namely,
u(x) : d{,
^t*r*,x)u({)
also has z solutions {r(r), . . ., rlt,(*) for the same characteristic value and
then the nonhomogeneous equation (16) is solvable if and only if
(23)
[' rul*,o
dx : o, i : 1,2,' ' ', n.
These last few results parallel very closely the theory of a system of linear
algebraic equations, homogeneous and nonhomogeneous'
3. The Work of Hilbert

A lecture by Erik Holmgren (b. lB72) in l90l on Fredholm's work on
integral equations, which had already been published in Sweden, aroused
Hilbert's interest in the subject. David Hilbert (1862-1943), the leading
mathematician of this century, who had already done superb work on alge-
braic numbers, algebraic invariants, and the foundations of geometry, now
turned his attention to integral equations. He says that an investigation ol
TIIE WORK OF HILBERT I06I
the subject showed him that it was important for the theory of definite in-
tegrals, for the development of arbitrary functions in series (of special
functions or trigonometric functions), for the theory of linear differential
equations, for potential theory, and for the calculus of variations. He wrote
a series of six papers from 1904 to l9l0 in the Nachrichten uon der Kdniglichen
Geselkehaft der WissensehaJten zu Gdttingen and reproduced these in his book
Grundzilge einer allgemeinen Theorie dcr linearen Integralgleichungen (1912).
During the latter part of this work he applied integral equations to problems
of mathematical physics.
Fredholm had used the analogy between integral equations and linear
algebraic equations, but instead of carrying out the limiting processes for the
infinite number of algebraic equations, he boldly wrote down the resulting
determinants and showed that they solved the integral equations. Hilbert's
first work was to carry out a rigorous passage to the limit on the finite
system of linear equations.
He started with the integral equation
(24) .fG) : d(,) - t)d1) dt,

^J'oG,
wherein I((.r, t) is continuous. The parameter i is explicit and plays a sig-
nificant role in the subsequent theory. Like Fredholm, Hilbert divided up the
interval [0, 1] into z parts so that pln or qln (p, e : 1,2,. . ., z) denotes a
coordinate in the interval [0, l]. Let
Koo : .(i,r,), r,:r(i), r,: rC).

Then from (24) we obtain the system of z equations in z unknowns
4r, . , ,, $n, namelY,
-f, : 6" - K,,6. ?:1,2,...,n.

^Z
c=1
After reviewing the theory of solution of a finite system of z linear

equations in z unknowns, Hilbert considers equation (24). For the kernel r( of
(24) the eigenvalues are defined to be zeros of the power series
s(^):l*it-l)odn^n,
n=l
where the coefficients d,, are given by
o" : *[:. ./" tt"r,,, s,)]l ds1...d"su

ro62 INTEGRAL EQUATIONS
Here l{-r((s,, sr))l is the determinant of the z by z matrix {/((s;, s7)},

i,j : 1,2,. . ., fr, and the s, are values oft in the interval [0, l]. To indicate
Hilbert's major result we need the intermediate quantities
l:. r((s"s'). --lG') .,lc') .l

*ui'"'l
L,(*,v):rifi iifti' i ds,...ds,,
ly(',) K(s,, sr) i((s, s,) |
wherein x(r) and y(r) are arbitrary continuous functions of r on [0, l], and
A(,\; r,y) : j ,-,,'o ,(x,y)\o-'.

Hilbert next defines
t) : ) A(^; 'r, Y) - D(I)
A*(tr; s,
wherein now .r(r) : r((s, r) and y(z) : K(r, t). He then proves that if k is
defned by
i(-(s. r) : A*(ljr,(l)
fr
t)
-
for values of ,\ for which D(f) I 0, then
r((.r, l) : E1s, t1 - rJ'r1r, r)K(r, t) dr
ft
: ,((s, t) - AJo K(s, t)K(r, t) dr'
Finally if { is taken to be
(25) 6Q) : -f(,) + r J' 81,, t)f (t) dt,
then { is a solution ot(24). The proofs ofvarious stePs in this theory involve a
number of limit considerations on expressions which occur in Hilbert's
treatment of the finite system of linear equations.
Thus far Hilbert showed that for any continuous (not necessarily
symmetric) kernel r((s, I) and for any value of tr such that 5()) I 0, there
exists the solving function (resolvent) r((r, t), which has the property that
(25) solves equation (24).
Now Hilbert assumes.l((s, t) to be symmeric, which enables him to use
facts about symmetric matrices in the finite case, and shows that the zeros
of E(I), that is, the eigenvalues of the symmetric kernel, are real. Then the
zeros of 6(l) are ordered according to increasing absolute values (for equal
THE WORK OF I{ILBERT r063
absolute values the positive zero is taken first and any multiplicities are to be
counted). The eigenfunctions of (24) are now defined by
d*(,) : (*#h,D),,,
r*1,r*;,,,*;,
where sr is chosen so that A*(,\*;s*,s*) * 0 and tr* is any eigenvalue of
K(s, t).
The eigenfunctions associated with the separate eigenvalues can be
chosen to be an orthonormal (orthogonal and normalized 13) set and for each
eigenvalue ,\* and for each eigenfunction belonging to tr*
d*(,) : t)ik(t) dt.

^-f'^G,
With these results Hilbert is able to prove what is called the generalized
principal axis theorem for symmetric quadratic forms. First, let
(26)
22r"**,
be an z-dimensional quadratic form in the a variables *L, x2,..., xn, This
can be written as (.Kx, r) where r( is the matrix of the *ro, I stands for the
vector (rr, xz, . . ., xn) and (Kx, x) is the inner product (scalar product) ofthe
two vectors Kx and x. Suppose 1( has the z distinct eigenvalues lt, ,\2, . . ., trn.
Then for any fixed )" the equations
(27) o: Sp - AoZk,o{o, 0 : 1,2,".,n

c=1
have the solution
6- : @y.,i8,"',6b,
which is a unique solution up to a constant multiple. It is then possible, as
Hilbert showed, to write
(28) K(x,x):z;tr#
wherein the parentheses again denote an inner product of vectors.
Hilbert's generalized principal axis theorem reads as follows: Let
1((s,I) be a continuous symmetric function ofs and t. Let /e(s) be the normal-
ized eigenfunction belongin! to the eigenvalue l, of the integral equation
13. Normalization means that {k(s) is modified so that Jl ({k)z ds = l.

1064 INTEGRAL EqUATIONS
(24). Then for arbitrary continuous *(s) and y(s), the following relation
holds:
(2e)
i" f Û,
t),c(s)y(t) ** :2f (J'o,t,r,r,, ,r([ +,r)vo) d,),
where a : in the latter

n or @ depending on the number of eigenvalues and
case the sum converges uniformly and absolutely for all r(s) and y(s) which
satisfy
fb fb -
ds < a and y2(s) ds < a.
J.lG) J,
The generalization of (28) to (29) becomes aPParent if we first define
JD
u(s)a(s) /s as the inner product of any two functions z(s) and u(s) and
'd?note it by (u, a). Now replace y(s) in (29) by x(s) and replace the left side
of (28) by integration instead of summation.
Hilbert proved next a famous result, Iater called the Hilbert-Schmidt
theorem. If;t(s) is such that for some continuous g(s)
(30) ,f(,) :
r K(s, t) s(t) dt
then
(3r) l$) :2"4',

p=L
where the {e are the orthonormal eigenfunctions of 1( and
(32) ,, : lo 4,{ll{,) a,.

Thus an " arbitrary function rt(s) can be expressed as an infinite series in
"
the eigenfunctions of -I( with coefficients r, that are the " Fourier " coefficients
of the expansion.
Hilbert, in the preceding work, had carried out limiting processes that
generalized results on finite systems of linear equations and finite quadratic
io.-, to integrals and integral equations. He decided that a treatment of
infinite quadratic forms themselves, that is, quadratic forms with infinitely
of the well-known
-.r,y ,.iiubl.s, would " form an essential completion
variables'" He therelore took
theory of quadratic forms with finitely many
,rp *hut may be called purely algebraic questions. He considers the infinite
bilinear lorm
K\x, y)
.\-:
Z koox,lq,
p,c=7
THE WORK OF IIILBERT r065
and by passing to the limit of results for bilinear and quadratic forms in 2z
and z variables respectively, obtains basic results. The details ofthe work are
considerable and we shall only note some ol the results. Hilbert first obtains
an expression for a resolvent form 1((); *, r), which has the peculiar feature
that it is the sum of expressions, one for each ofa discrete set ofvalues ofl,
and of an integral over a set of ,\ belonging to a continuous range' The
discrete set of ) values belongs to the point spectrum ofI(, and the continuous
set to the continuous or band sPectrum. This is the first significant use of
continuous spectra, which had been observed for partial differential equations
by Wilhelm Wirtinger (b. 1865) in 1896.14
To get at the key result for quadratic forms, Hilbert introduces the notion
of a bounded form. The notation (.r, x) denotes the inner (scalar) product of
the vector (rr, rr, . . . , *,, . .. ) with itself and (x,y) has the analogous
meaning. Then the form K(x, g) is said to be bounded lf lK(x, g)l < M fot
all r and y such that (*, *) < I and (y,y) < L Boundedness implies con-
tinuity, which Hilbert defines for a function of infinitely many variables.
Hilbert's key result is the generalization to quadratic forms in infinitely
many variables of the more familiar principal axis theorem of analytic
geometry. He proves that there exists an orthogonal transformation 7 such
that in the new variables xi, where x' : Tx,.t( can be reduced to a "sum of
squares." That is, every bounded quadratic form K(x, r) : 23,o=t kr{rxo
can be transformed by a unique orthogonal transformation into the form
(33) K(x.t\:5.*,r?
2 "
I d"(p't),
* JG, tL
I=1
where the k, are the reciprocal eigenvalues of K. The integral, which we shall
not describe further, is over a continuous range ofeigenvalues or a continuous
spectrum.
To eliminate the continuous spectrum, Hilbert introduces the concept
of complete continuity. A function F(*t, xz, . . .) of infinitely many variables
is said to be completely continuous at a : (ar, as,. . .) if
lim F(o, + ey a2 I
6',O.
s2, ' ' ') : F (ar, a2,' ' ')
ci-o'
whenever €lt E2t ." ,' , are allowed to run through any value system ef), ef), . . .
having the limit
lim ei]) : 0, lim ef) : 0, "'.
hi co lt+ o
This is a stronger requirement than continuity as previously introduced by

Hilbert.
l*. Math. Ann., 48, 1897, 36F89.
For a quadratic form r((.r, .r) to be completely continuous it is sufficient

that )fl.=, k?o < @. With the requirement of complete continuity, Hilbert
is able to prove that if .t( is a completely continuous bounded form, then by an
orthogonal transformation it can be brought into the form
(34) K(x,x):2r,*,
I
where the /r, are reciprocal eigenvalues and the (xr,*r,,..) satisly the
condition that )f *f is finite.
Now Hilbert applies his theory of quadratic forms in infinitely many
variables to integral equations. The results in many instances are not new
but are obtained by clearer and simpler methods. Hilbert starts this new
work on integral equations by defining the important concept ofa complete
orthogonal system of functions {{r(s)}. This is a sequence of functions all
defined and continuous on the interval [a, D] with the following properties:
(a) orthogonality:
Jd,{,)d"{,): t,", P,4:1,2,"'

(b) completeness: for every pair of functions u and a defined on fa, bl
r z(s)a(r) dr: ) [,0,t'1,<'l

o'
[' $o$)a(s) d:.
The value
ui : J"g,(s)u(s)
ds
is called the Fourier coefficient of z("r) with respect to the system {de}.
Hilbert shows that a complete orthonormal system can be defined for
any finite interval fa, bl, tor example, by the use of polynomials. Then a
generalized Bessel's inequality is proved, and finally the condition
lo
u'(s) d' : S ,I,
is shown to be equivalent to completeness.
Hilbert now turns to the integral equation
(35) .f(r) : d(r) * f o(r, t)\g) dt.

TrrE woRK oF HTLBERT 1067
The kernel symmetric, is developed in a double

.I((s, I), not necessarily
" Fourier" series by means of the coefrcients
",,
: I: lo 16,,16,1,16og) ds dt.
It follows that
2
p,tl= 7
"',,. ff Kzg,t) dsdt.
Also, if
lb
o, : l,$,(s)f(s)
ds'
that is, if the a, are the " Fourier" coefficients of;f(s), then 2?=, a? < a.
Hilbert next converts the above integral equation into a system of in-
finitely many linear equations in infinitely many unknowns. The idea is to
look at solving the integral equation for {(s) as a problem of finding the
" Fourier" coefficients of {(s). Denoting the as yet unknown coefficients by
*s )(2, . . . , he gets the following linear equations:
sr
(36) *o+ Zapdq:ap, P:1,2,"'.
He proves that if this system has a unique solution, then the integral equation
has a unique continuous solution, and when the linear homogeneous system
associated with (36) has z linearly independent solutions, then the homo-
geneous integral equation associated with (35),
(37) o : d(s) * I t)i1) dt,

"U,
has r linearly independent solutions. In this case the original nonhomo-
geneous integral equation has a solution if and only if ,y'(tr)(s), ft : 1,2, . . -, n,
which are the z linearly independent solutions ofthe transposed homogeneous
equation
dt,) + K(t, s)g(t) dt : o

/'
and which also exist when (37) has z solutions, satisfy the conditions
lb
(38) .y''n'(r)"f(r) ds : o, h : r,2,"',n-
J.
Thus the Fredholm alternative theorem is obtained: Either the equation
(3s) ,f(,) : d(,) + !' x{,, t)|Q) dt

has a unique solution for all;f or the associated homogeneous equation has
n linearly independent solutions. In the latter case (39) has a solution if and
only if the orthogonality conditions (38) are satisfied'
Hilbert turns next to the eigenvalue problem
(40) ,f(,) : dG) - t)6U) dt

^f ^G,
where r( is now symmetric. The symmetry of r( implies that its "Fourier"
coefficients determine a quadratic form .I((x, r) which is completely con-
tinuous. IIe shows that there exists an orthogonal transformation T whose
matrix is {/ro} such that
K(x', x') _s
-L
,2
llpqp ,
where the pe are tt,Le reciprocal eigenvalues of the quadratic form K(x' x)'
The eigenfunctions {{r(s)} for the kernel r((s, I) are now defined by
: :
Z,(l((s)) 2,*ll .l((s, t)Oo(l) dt y.,$r(s)
where the Oo(t) are a given complete orthonormal set. The {r(s) [as distinct
from the Oq(r)] are shown to form an orthonormal set and to satisfy
d,(') : r,Jr1'' t)Lel) dt
where l, : I lpr. Thus Hilbertshows anew the existence ol eigenfunctions

for the homogeneous case of (40) and for every finite eigenvalue ol the
quadratic form I((*, *) associated with the kernel .r((s, t) of (a0)'
Now Hilbert establishes again (Hilbert-Schmidt theorem) that if;t(s)
is any continuous function for which there is a g so that
:
[' x$, t1g1t1 dt f(s),
thenlf is representable as a series in the eigenfunctions of .I( which is uniformly
and absolutely convergent (cf. t3l]). Hilbert uses this result to show that the
homogeneous equation associated with (40) has no nontrivial solutions
."""pi ut the eigenvalues l' Then the Fredholm alternative theorem takes
the iorm: For I I I, equation (40) has a unique solution' For I : trr,
equation (40) has a solution if and only if the n, conditions
J d,*,k).f(') : o, j : 1,2,. . ., no
TrrE woRK oF HTLBERT 1069
are satisfied where the are the z, eigenfunctions associated with trr.
$r*/s)
Finally, he proves anew the extension of the principal axis theorem :
Il t *r,, t)u(s)u(t) * " : 2*,{[' ,roo,at *\',

where z(s) is an arbitrary (continuous) function and wherein all f, associated
with any ), are included in the summation.
This later work (1906) of Hilbert dispensed with Fredholm's infinite
determinants. In it he showed directly the relation between integral equa-
tions and the theory of complete orthogonal systems and the expansion
of functions in such systems.
Hilbert applied his results on integral equations to a variety of problems
in geometry and physics. In particular, in the third of the six papers he
solved Riemann's problem of constructing a function holomorphic in a
domain bounded by a smooth curve when the real or the imaginary Part
ofthe boundary value is given or both are related by a given linear equation.
One of the most noteworthy achievements in Hilbert's work, which
appears in the 1904 and 1905 papers, is the formulation of Sturm-Liouville
boundary-value problems of differential equations as integral equations'
Hilbert's result states that the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions ofthe differen-
tial equation
(41)
fr(oatu*) * oav * '\z: o
subject to the boundary conditions

u(a) :0, u(b) :0
(and even more general boundary conditions) are the eigenvalues and
eigenfunctions of
(42) 4@) - ^ I: G@, t)i6) dt : o,
where G(r, f) is the Green's function for (41), that is, a particular solution of
*,(t4-) + qQ)u: o
which satisfies certain differentiability conditions and whose first partial

derivative 0Gl0x has a jump singularity at tc : f equal to - | lpc). Similar
results hold for partial differential equations. Thus integral equations are a
way of solving ordinary and partial diflerential equations.
To recapitulate Hilbert's major results, first of all he established the
general spectral theory for symmetric kernels r(. Only twenty years earlier,
roTo INTEGRAL EqUATIONS
ithad required great mathematical efforts (Chap. 28, sec. B) to prove the
existence of the lowest oscillating frequency for a membrane. With integral
equations, constructive proofofthe existence ofthe whole series offrequencies
and of the actual eigenfunctions was obtained under very general conditions
on the oscillating medium. These results were first derived, using Fredholm's
theory, by Emile Picard.ls Another noteworthy result due to Hilbert is that
the development ofa function in the eigenlunctions belonging to an integral
equation of the second kind depends on the solvability of the corresponding
integral equation of the first kind. In particular, Hilbert discovered that the
success of Fredholm's method rested on the notion of complete continuity,
which he carried over to bilinear forms and studied intensively, Here he
inaugurated the spectral theory of bilinear symmetric forms.
After Hilbert showed how to convert problems of differential equations
to integral equations, this approach was used with increasing frequency to
solve physical problems. Here the use of a Green's function to convert has
been a major tool. Also, Hilbert himself showed,16 in problems of gas dy-
namics, that one can go directly to integral equations. This direct recourse
to integral equations is possible because the concept of summation proves as
fundamental in some physical problems as the concept of rate of change
which leads to differential equations is in other problems. Hilbert also
emphasized that not ordinary or partial differential equations but integral
equations are the necessary and natural starting point for the theory of
expansion of functions in series, and that the expansions obtained through
differential equations are just special cases of the general theorem in the
theory of integral equations.
4. Tlu Immediate Successors of Hilbert

Hilbert's work on integral equations was simplified by Erhard Schmidt
(1876-1959), professor at several German universities, who used methods
originated by H. A. Schwarz in potential theory. Schmidt's most significant
contribution was his generalization in 1907 of the concept of eigenfunction
to integral equations with non-symmetric kernels.lT
Friedrich Riesz ( 1880-1956), a Hungarian professor of mathematics,
in 1907 also took up Hilbert's work.18 Hilbert had treated integral equations
of the form
,f(r) : d(,) * f t){(t) dt,

"G,
15. Renditonti dcl Circolo Matematho di Palermo,22, 1906,241-59.
16. Math. Ann.,72, 1912,562-77 : Grundzilge, Chap. 22.
17. Math. Ann.,63, 1907,433-76 and 64, 1907, 16l-74.
18. 73+36, 1409-l l.
Conp. Rend., 144, 1907, 615-19,
THE IMMEDIATE SUCCESSORS OF HILBERT toT t
where,f and K are continuous. Riesz sought to extend Hilbert's ideas to

-ore j.rr"..l functions ;f(s). Toward this end
it was necessary to be sure
that the " Fourier " coefficients ;f
of could be determined with respect to a
given orthonormal sequence ol functions {dJ. Ht was also interested in
ii..o*,..i.rg under what circumstances a given sequence of numbers {ar}
could be the Fourier coefficients of some functionrf relative to a given ortho-
normal sequence {{r}.
Riesz lntroduced functions whose squares are Lebesgue integrable and
obtained the following theorem: Let {{r} be an orthonormal sequence of
Lebesgrre square integrable functions all defined on the interval la, bl' ll
is a
{ar} is a ..qrr..". of real numbers, then the convergence of )ff=ra}
,,.".rru"y and sufficient condition for there to exist a function rf such that
dx:
l" ruto,al
ap
for each $, and ar. The function;f Proves to be Lebesgue square integrable'
This theorem establishes a one-to-one correspondence between the set of
Lebesgue square integrable functions and the set of square summable
,.q.r.i"., through the mediation of any orthonormal sequence of Lebesgue
square integrable functions.
With ihe introduction of Lebesgue integrable functions, Riesz was
also able to show that the integral equation of the second kind
-fG) : C(') + J x{', t)|U) dt

can be solved under the relaxed conditions that;f(s) and ff(s, l) are Lebesgue
square integrable. Solutions are unique uP to a function whose Lebesgue
integral on [a, D] is 0.
-In
the ru-. y.u. that Riesz published his first papers, Ernst Fischer
(1875-1959), a p.ofersor at the lJniversity of Cologne, introduced the
.orr".p, of conlreige.,". in the mean.le A sequence of functions {.,;fi} defined
on arinterval [a, 6] is said to converge in the mean if
ff*@) - -f^(*))2 dx
: o'
,l11-[
and {J} is said to converge in the mean to;f if
:y:['"c-n126:o'
The integrals are Lebesgue integrals. The function;f is uniquely determined
to within a function defined over a set of measure 0, that-.is, a function
g(x) * O,called a null function, which satisfies the condition .fi s'@) d* : O'
19. Com!. Rmd., 144, 1907,1022-24.
t072 INTEGRAL EQUATIONS
The set offunctions which are Lebesgue square integrable on an interval

[a, D] was denoted later by L2(a, b) or simply by 22. Fischer's main result is
that L2(a,6) is complete in the mean; that is, if the functionsf belong to
L2(a, b) and if {fr} converges in the mean, then there is a function .,f in
Lz(a, b) such that {f} converges in the mean tol This completeness property
is the chief advantage of square summable functions. Fischer then deduced
Riesz's above theorem as a corollary, and this result is known as the Riesz-
Fischer theorem. Fischer emphasized in a subsequent note 20 that the use
of Lebesgue square integrable functions was essential. No smaller set of
functions would suffice.
The determination of a function J@) that belongs to a given set of
Fourier coefficients {a,,} with respect to a given sequence of orthonormal
functions {g"}, o. the determination of an;[ satisfying
t S"@)-f(*) h : on, n: 1,2,...,
which had arisen in Riesz's 1907 worls, is called the moment problem
(Lebesgue integration is understood). In 191021 Riesz sought to generalize
this problem. Because in this new work Riesz used the Hdlder inequalities
\l",t,l = (Z r,,r)"'(i
',,,1"'
and
*)''" ([- kr tu)''o,

l[- ra*at*l = ffi t.rp
where llp + llq: l, and other inequalities, he was obliged to introduce

the set IP of functionsyf measurable on a set M and for which l;f l? is Lebesgue
integrable on M. His first important theorem is that if a function i(x) is
such that the product;f(x)n(x) is integrable for every,f in Ze, then I is in
Lq and, conversely, the product of an LP function and an Zq lunction is
always (Lebesgue) integrable. Itis understood that p > l and,llp + llq : 1.
Riesz also introduced the concepts of strong and weak convergence,
The sequence of functions {,f} is said to converge strongly toll (in the mean
of order 1) if
fb
,l1i J. L4f.l - Jk)l' dx : o'
20. Conp. Rend., lM, 1907, 1148-50.
21. Math. Ann.,69, 1910, 449-97.
EXTENSIONS OF TIIE TIIEORY t073
The sequence {/,.} is said to converge weakly to;lif

r- <M
lita.tr
for M independent ol z, and if for every x in fa, bf
- ru)) dt : o'
Y!)rnat
strong convergence implies weak convergence. (The modern definition of
weak iorvergence, if {fr} belongs to Le and if;[ belongs to I? and if
dx :
;,a J. rrr,l - f,(x))g(x)
o
holds for every g in Zq, then {;f(.r)} converges weakly to J is equivalent

to Riesz's.)
In the same l9l0 paper Riesz extended the theory of the integral
equation
d(,) - rf: KQt,t)dU) at :-f(x)

to the case where the given;f and the unknown { are functions in Z"' The
results on solution of the eigenvalue problem for this integral equation are
analogous to Hilbert's results. What is more striking is that, to carry out
his work, Riesz introduced the abstract concept of an operator, formulated
for it the Hilbertian concept of complete continuity, and treated abstract
operator theory. We shall say more about this abstract approach in the
next chapter. Among other results, Riesz proved that the continuous spectrum
of a real completely continuous oPerator in Z2 is empty'
5. Extensions of the TheorY

The importance Hilbert attached to integral equations made the subject a
world-wide fad for a considerable length of time, and an enormous literature,
most of it of ephemeral value, was produced. However, some extensions of
the subject have proved valuable. We can merely name them'
The theory of integral equations presented above deals with linear
integral equations I that is, the unknown function a(.r) enters linearly' The
theory has been extended to nonlinear integral equations, in which the
unknown function enters to the second or higher degree or in some more
complicated fashion.
-Mo..o.r..,
our brief sketch has said little about the conditions on the
given functions ;f(.t) and K(r, f) which lead to the many conclusions' If
ihese functions are not continuous and the discontinuities are not limited,
or if the interval [a, D] is replaced by an infinite interval, many ofthe results

are altered or at least new proofs are needed. Thus even the Fourier transform
J@ : ^lzf'
,Y 7JO cos (x$u($ dt,
which can be regarded as an integral equation of the first kind and has as
its solution the inverse transform
,@ : l';f cos (x{)f({) d(,
has just two eigenvalues * I and each has an infinite number of eigenfunc-
tions, These cases are now studied under the heading of singular integral
equations. Such equations cannot be solved by the methods applicable to
the Volterra and Fredholm equations. Moreover, they exhibit a curious
property, namely, there are continuous intervals of l-values or band spectra
for which there are solutions. The first significant paper on this subject is
due to Hermann Weyl (1885-1955).22
The subject of existence theorems for integral equations has also been
given a great deal of attention. This work has been devoted to linear and
nonlinear integral equations. For example, existence theorems for
y(x) :-f(*) + xP,s,y(s)) ds,

J-
which includes as a special case the Volterra equation of the second kind
y(x) : -f(*) + f* xg, s)s(s) ds,
have been given by many mathematicians.

Historically, the next major development was an outgrowth of the work
on integral equations. Hilbert regarded a function as given by its Fourier
coefficients. These satisfy the condition that )f a! is finite. He had also
introduced sequences of real numbers {rn} such that )"'= r xl is finite. Then
Riesz and Fischer showed that there is a one-to-one correspondence between
Lebesgue square summable functions and square summable sequences of
their Fourier coefficients. The square summable sequences can be regarded
as the coordinates of points in an infinite-dimensional space, which is a
generalization of n-dimensional Euclidean space. Thus functions can be
regarded as points of a space, now called Hilbert space, and the integral
tb K@, g)u(x) dx can be regarded as an operator transforming a(x)
into
itself or another function. These ideas suggested for the study of integral
equations an abstract approach that fitted into an incipient abstract approach
to the calculus of variations. This new approach is now known as functional
analysis and we shall consider it next.
22. Math. Ann.,66, 1908,273-324 = Gcs. Abh., l, l-86.
BIBLIOGRAPHY to75
Bibliograplry
Bernkopf, IVt.:
,.The Development of Function Spaces with Particular Reference
to their Origins in Integral Equation Theory," Archioe fot Hislory of Exact
Sciences, 3, 1966, l-96.
Bliss, G. A. : " The Scientific Work of E. H. Moore," Amer' Math' Soc' Bull', 40,
1934,501-14.
Bocher, M.: An Introduction lo the Slud.g of Integtal Equatians, 2nd ed', Cambridge
University Press, 1913.
Bourbaki, N.z Eliments d'hisloire des mathimati,ques, Hermann, 1960, pp' 230-45'
Davis, Harold T.: The Present Stale oJ Integral Equations, Indiana university Press,
1926.
Hahn, H.: " Bericht iiber die Theorie der linearen Integralgleichungen," Jahres'
der Deut. Math.-Verein., 20, l9l l, 69-l l7'
Hellinger, E.; Hilberts Arbeiten i)ber Integralgleichungen und unendliche Ghichungs'
systeme, in Hilbert's Gcsam. Abh.,3, 94-145, Julius Springer, 1935'
" Begriindung der Theorie quadritischer Formen von unendlichvielen
Veriinderlichen," Jour. fiit Math., 1361 1909, 210-71'
Hellinger, E., and O. Toeplitz: " Integralgleichungen und Gleichungen mit
unendlichvielen lJnbekannten," Encgk. der Malh' Wiss', B' G' Teubner,
1923-27, Vol.2, Part 3,2nd halt 1335-1597'
Hilbert, D.: Grundziige iiner allgemeiwn Theoric dcr liruarcn Integralglcichungcn, 1912,
Chelsea (rePrint), 1953.
Reid, Constance : Hilbert, Springer-Verlag, 1970'
Volterra, Yito: Apere matematithe,5 vols., Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 195'1-62'
Weyl, Hermann : Gesammelte Abhandlungen,4 vols, Springer-Verlag, 1968'
+6
Functional Analysis
One must be sure that one has enabled science to make a

great advance if one is to burden it with many ne\/ terms and
require that readers follow research that offers them so much
that is strange. A. L. CAUCHY
l. TluNature of Functional Analysis

By the late nineteenth century it was apparent that many domains of
mathematics dealt with transformations or operators acting on functions.
Thus even the ordinary differentiation operation and its inverse antidifferen-
tiation act on a function to produce a new function. In problems of the
calculus of variations wherein one deals with integrals such as
J: dx,
)"F(x,s,y')
the integral can be regarded as operating on a class of functions y (x) ot
which that one is sought which happens to maximize or minimize the integral.
The area of differential equations offers another class of operators. Thus the
differential operator
L:!;+p@)!*+ilx),
acting on a class y(,r) of functions, converts these to other functions, Of
course to solve the differential equation, one seeks a particular y(r) such
that Z acting on that y(r) yields 0 and perhaps satisfies initial or boundary
conditions. As a final example ol operators we have integral equations. The
right-hand side of
"f@)
: I' K@,Y)u(x) dx
can be regarded as an operator acting on various z(*) to produce new

functions, though again, as in the case of differential equations, the z(x)
that solves the equation is transformed into/(x).
to76
THE TIIEORY OF FUNCTIONALS r077
The idea that motivated the creation of functional analysis is that

all of these operators could be considered under one abstract lormulation
of an operator acting on a class of functions. Moreover, these functions
could be regarded as elements or points of a space. Then the operator
transforms points into points and in this sense is a generalization of ordinary
transformations such as rotations. Some of the above operators carry func-
tions into real numbers, rather than functions. Those operators that do
yield real or complex numbers are today called functionals and the term
operator is more commonly reserved for the transformations lhat catry
functions into functions. Thus the term functional analysis, which was
introduced bylPaul P. L6vy (lS86-) when functionals were the key interest,
is no longer appropriate. The search for generality and unification is one
of the distinctive features of twentieth century mathematics, and functional
analysis seeks to achieve these goals.
2. The Theory of Functionals

The abstract theory ol functionals was initiated by Volterra in work con-
cerned with the calculus ofvariations. His work on functions oflines (curves),
as he called the subject, covers a number of papers.l A function of lines was,
for Volterra, a real-valued function F whose values depend on all the values
of functions y(r) defined on some interval [a, 6]. The functions themselves
were regarded as points of a space for which a neighborhood of a point and
the limit ofa sequence ol points can be defined. For the functionals FIS(x)l
Volterra offered definitions ol continuity, derivative and differential. How-
ever, these definitions were not adequate for the abstract theory of the
calculus of variations and were superseded. His definitions were in fact
criticized by Hadamard.2
Even belore Volterra commenced his work, the notion that a collection
of functions y(x) all defined on some common interval be regarded as
points of a space had already been suggested' Riemann, in his thesis,3 spoke
of a collection of functions forming a connected closed domain (of points
ola space). Giulio Ascoli (1843 1896) a and Cesare Arzel) 5 sought to extend
to sets offunctions Cantor's theory ofsets ofpoints, and so regarded functions
as points of a space. Arzeli also spoke of functions of lines' Hadamard
suggested at the First f nternational Congress of Mathematicians in 1897
6
l. Atri della Reale Accadenia dei Lincei, (4), 3, 1887, 97 105, 14l-46' 153-58 : O?ue
matematiche, l, 294-314, and others of the same and later years.
2. Bult. Soc. Math. de France,30, 1902, 40-43 : (Euores, 1,401-4.
3, We*e, p. 30.
4. Memorie della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, (3), 18, 1883, 521-86.
5. Atti della Accad. dei Lincei, Rendiconti, (4), 5, 1889, 342 48.
6- Verhandlungen des erslen inlernationalen Mathematiker-Koagtcsses, Teubner, 1898, 201-2'
roTB FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS
that curves be considered points of a set. He was thinking of the family of

as
all continuous functions defined over [0, l], a family that arose in his work7
on partial differential equations. Emile Borel made the same suggestion
for a diffe.errt purPose, namely, the study of arbitrary functions by means of
series.
Hadamard, too, undertook the study of functionalso on behalf of the
calculus of variations. The term functional is due to him' According to
Hadamard, a functional Uty\)l is linear if wheny(t) : Ity.(') + i2y2!)'
wherein 11 and tr2 are constants, then U[y(r)] : \rUlyr(t)l + )'rU ly r(t))'
The first major effort to build up an abstract theory of function spaces
and functionals was made by Maurice Frdchet (lB7B-), a leading French
professor of mathematics, in his doctoral thesis of 1906'e In what he called
the functional calculus he sought to unify in abstract terms the ideas in the
work of Cantor, Volterra, Arzeli, Hadamard, and others'
To gain the largest degree of generality for his function spaces, Frdchet
took over the collection of basic notions about sets developed by Cantor'
though for Frdchet the points ol the sets are functions. He also lormulated
more generally the notion of a limit of a set of points' This notion was not
definJ explicitly but was characterized by properties general enough to
embrace the kinds of limit found in the concrete theories Frdchet sought
to unify. He introduced a class I of spaces, the I denoting that a limit
concep; exists for each space. Thus if r4 is a space olclass Z and the elements
arc Ai, Ar,.. . chosen at random, it must be possible to determine whether or
not there exists a unique element .r4, called the limit of the sequence {'4n}
when it exists, and such that
(a) lf A, : A for every i, then lim {A,} : A.

(t) Ir z is the limit of ft") then .r4 is the limit of every infinite subsequence
of {1.}.
Then Frdchet introduced a number of concepts for any space ol class

I. Thus the derived set E, of a set.E consists of the set of points of E which
are limits of sequences belonging to E. E is closed if E' is contained in .8.
E is perfect if E' : E. A point A of E is an interior point ofE (in the narrow
,.rr.1 if I is not the limit of any ..qre.t.C not in 'E A set E is compact if
either it has finitely many elements or if every infinite subset of E has at
least one limit element. If E is closed and compact it is called extremal.
(Fr6chet's " compact " is the modern relatively sequentially compact, and
his " extremal " is today's sequentially compact') Fr6chet's first important
theorem is a generalization ofthe closed nested interval theorem: If{E } is a
7. Verhandlungcn, 204-5.
8. Comp. Rend., 136, 1903, 351-54 : (Euures, 1,405-8'
9, Rendiconti del Circolo Matematieo di Palermo,22, 1906, l-74'
THE THEORY OF FUNCTIONALS t079
decreasing sequence, that is, E,*, is contained in.E',, of closed subsets ofan
extremal set, then the intersection of all the .En is not empty.
Frichet now considers functionals (he calls them functional operations)'
These are real-valued functions defined on a set E. He defines the continuity
ofa functional thus: A functional Uis said to be continuous at an element
A of E il lirr- U (A*) : U(A) for all sequences {1,} contained in E and
converging to L He also introduced semicontinuity olfunctionals, a notion
introduced for ordinary functions by Ren6 Baire (1874-1932) in 1899.10 t/
is upper semicontinuous in .E il U (A) > Iim sup U (A^) for the {l'} just
described. It is lower semicontinuous if U (,4) < lim inf U (A^)."
With these definitions FrCchet was able to prove a number of theorems
on functionals. Thus every functional continubus on an extremal set -E is
bounded and attains its maximum and minimum on E. Every upper semi-
continuous functional defined on an extremal set -E is bounded above and
attains its maximum on E.
Frdchet introduced next concepts for sequences and sets of functionals
such as uniform convergence, quasi-uniform convergence' compactness, and
equicontinuity. For example, the sequence of functionals {U,,} converges
uniformly to U if given any positive quantity e, lU"(A) - U(A)I < e for z
sufficiently large but independent of A in E. He was then able to Prove
generalizations to functionals of theorems previously obtained for real
functions.
Having treated the class of spaces Z, Fr€chet defines more specialized
spaces such as neighborhood spaces, redefines the concePts introduced for
spaces with limit points, and proves theorems analogous to those already
described but often with better results because the spaces have more
properties.
Finally he introduces metric spaces. In such a sPace a function playing
the role of distance (icart) and' denoted by (A, B) is defined for each two
points ,4 and -B of the space and this function satisfies the conditions:
(a) (A, B) : (8, A) > 0;
(b) (1, B) : 0 if and onty if A : B;
(c) (A,B) + (B,C) > (A,C).
Condition C is called the triangle inequality' Such a space, he says, is of
class d. For such spaces, too, Frdchet is able to prove a number of theorems
about the spaces and the functionals defined on them much like those
previously
- proven for the more general spaces.
Frdchet gave some examples of function spaces' Thus the set of all real
functions of a real variable, all continuous on the same interval 1 with the
10. Annali di Mat.' (3) 13, 1899, l-122.

'
l. The inferior limit is the smallest limit Point of the scquence U(1")'
I
ro80 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS
icart of any two functionslf and g defined to be max l"f @- S(") l, is a sPace
of class d. Today this hart is called the maximum norm.
Another example offered by Fr6chet is the set of all sequences of real
numbers. lf x: (xy.r2,...) and ! : (!y!2,...) are any two sequences,
the icart of x and y is defined to be
(*,y):zi#;5
This, as Fr6chet remarks, is a space of countably infinite dimensions'
Using his spaces d, Fr6chet 12 succeeded in giving a definition of
continuity, diflerential, and differentiability of a functional. Though these
were not entirely adequate for the calculus of variations, his definition of
differential is worth noting because it is the core of what did prove to be
satisfactory. IIe assumes that there exists a linear functional Z(a(.r)) such
that
F[s(x) +,r(,)] : F(y) + LQ) + eM(fi,
where 4(x) is a variation on y(.r), M(fi is the maximum absolute value
of 1(x) on fa, bf, and. e approaches 0 with M. Then Z(a) is the differential of
F(y). He also presupposes the continuity of F(y), which is more than can be
satisfied in problems of the calculus of variations.
Charles Albert Fischer (lSB4-1922) 1a then improved Volterra's defini-
tion of the derivative of a functional so that it did cover the functionals
used in the calculus of variations; the differential ofa functional could then
be defined in terms of the derivative.
So far as the basic definitions of properties of functionals needed for the
calculus of variations are concerned, the final formulations were given by
Elizabeth Le Stourgeon (lBBl-1971).14 The key concept, the differential
of a functional, is a modification of Fr6chet's. The lunctional F(y) is said
to have a differential atyo(*) if there exists a linear functional Z(r7) such that
for all arcs y6 * q in the neighborhood ofyo the relation
F(yo + il : F(Yo) + L(fi + M(d"Qt)
holds where M (q) is the maximum absolute value of r7 and 4' on the interval
[a,6] e(7) is a quantity vanishing with -,M(1). She also defined second
1nd
differehtials.
Both Le Stourgeon and Fischer deduced from their definitions of
differentials necessary conditions for the existence of a minimum ol a
functional that are of a type applicable to the problems ol the calculus of
variations. For example, a neccssary condition that a flunctional F(y) have
12. Amer. Math. Soc. Trans., 15, 1914, 135-61'

13. Amcr. Jour. of Math.,35, 1913, 369-94.
14. Amer. Math. Soc. Trans.,2l,1920,357-83.
LINEAR FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS IOBI
a minimum for g : Z(ri) vanish for every 4('r) that is continuous

yo is that
and has continuous first derivatives on la, bf and such that r7(a) : 'l(b) : 0'
It is possible to deduce the Euler equation from the condition that the first
differential vanish, and by using a definition of the second differential of a
functional (which several writers already named had given), it is possible to
deduce the necessity ol the Jacobi condition of the calculus of variations.
The definitive work, at least up to 1925, on the theory ol functionals
required for the calculus of variations was done by Leonida Tonelli (1885-
L946), aprofessor at the universities of Bologna and Pisa' After writing many
pup.., o., the subject from 1911 on, he published his Fondamenti di calcolo
ietie uriazioni (2 vols., 1922, 1924), in which he considers the subject lrom
the standpoint of functionals. The classical theory had relied a great deal
on the thiory ofdifferential equations. Tonelli's aim was to replace existence
theorems for differential equations by existence theorems for minimiziTg
curves of integrals. Throughout his work the concept of the lower semi-
continuity of a functional is a fundamental one because the functionals are
not continuous.
Tonelli first treats sets ol curves and gives theorems that insure the
existence of a limiting curve in a class of curves. Ensuing theorems insure
that the usual integral, but in the parametric form
x(t), s(t) x' dt'

l, 'u, ' ' s')
will be lower semicontinuous as a function of r(I)
and g(t)' (Later he con-
siders the more fundamental nonparametric integrals.) He derives the four
classical necessary conditions of the calculus of variations for the standard
types of problems. The main emphasis in the second volume is on existence
tir.o..-, for a great variety of problems deduced on the basis of the notion
of semicontinuity. That is, given an integral of the above form, by imposing
conditions on it as a functional and on the class of curves to be considered,
he proves there is a curve in the class which minimizes the integral. His
theorems deal with absolute and relative minima and maxima'
To some extent Tonelli's work pays dividends in differential equations,
for his existence theorems imply the existence of the solutions of the differen-
tial equations which in the classical approach supply the minimizing curves
as solutions. However, his work was limited to the basic types of problems of
the calculus of variations. Though the abstract approach was pursued sub-
sequently by many men, the progress made in the application of the theory
of lunctionals to the calculus of variations has not been great'
3. Linear Functional Analgsis

The major work in functional analysis sought to provide an abstract theory
for integral equations as opposed to the calculus ofvariations' The properties
r o82
of functionals needed for the latter field are rather special and do not hold
for functionals in general. In addition, the nonlinearity of these functionals
created difficulties that were irrelevant to the functionals and operators that
embraced integral equations. While concrete extensions of the theory of
solution of integral equations were being made by Schmidt, Fischer, and
Riesz, these men and others also began work on the corresPonding abstract
theory.
The first attempt at an abstract theory of linear functionals and oper-
ators was made by the American mathematician E' H. Moore starting in
1906.16 Moore realized that there were features common to the theory of
linear equations in a finite number of unknowns, the theory of infinitely
many equations in an infinite number of unknowns, and the theory of linear
integral equations. He therefore undertook to build an abstract theory,
called General Analysis, which would include the above more concrete
theories as special cases. His approach was axiomatic. We shall not present
the details because Moore's influence was not extensive, nor did he achieve
effective methodology. Moreover, his symbolic language was strange and
difficult for others to follow.
The first influential step toward an abstract theory oflinear functionals
and opcrators was taken in 1907 by Erhard Schmidt 18 and Fr6chet.17
Hilbert, in his work on integral equations, had regarded a function as given
by its Fourier coefficients in an expansion with respect to an orthonormal
sequence of functions. These coefficients and the values he attached to the
rj in his theory of quadratic forms in infinitely many variables are sequences
{xn} such that )fl xl is finite. However, Hilbert did not regard these sequences
as coordinates ofa point in space, nor did he use geometrical language. This
step was taken by Schmidt and Fr6chet. By regarding each sequence {rn} as
a point, functions were represented as points of an infinite-dimensional
space. Schmidt also introduced complex as well as real numbers in the
sequences {x,}. Such a space has since been called a Hilbert space. Our
account follows Schmidt's work.
The elements of Schmidt's function spaces are infinite sequences of
complex numbers, z : {zr\, with
)b,P ' *'

Schmidt introduced the notation ll z ll for {)f= r zr|r}'t' ) llz ll was later called
the norm of z. Following Hilbert, Schmidt used the notation (2, w) lor
15. Sec, for example, Atti del IV Congresso Internazionale dei Matematici (l9OA),2' Rcale
Accadcmia dei Lincei,l909, 98-l14, and Amer. Math. Soc. Bull., 18, l9lll12,334-62.
16, Rcndiconti del Circolo Malcmatico di Palermo,25, 1908, 53-77 .
17. Nouvcllcs Annales de Mathlmatiques, S, t908, 97-116, 289-317.
LINEAR FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS roB3
lf,=, zow* so that llzll : \4r2. (The modern practice is to define (2, rr)
as ) zSitr.) Two elements z and w of the space are called orthogonal if and
only if (2, a) : O.Schmidt then proves a generalized Pythagorean theorem,
namely, if 21, 22,. . . , z,t are n mutually orthogonal elements of the space,
then
IL: s.
L'p
implies
ll,ll': .L\ Idt'

It follows that the a mutually orthogonal elements are linearly independent.
Schmidt also obtained Bessel's inequality in this general space; that is, if
:
{2,} is an infinite sequence of orthonormal elements, so that (zr, 2o) 6eq,
and if n, is any element, then
t
L l(.,
2o)l' < ll,ll'
Also Schwarz's inequality and the triangle inequality are proved for the
norm.
A sequence of elements {2"} is said to converge strongly to z if llz" - zll
approaches 0 and every strong Cauchy sequence, i.e. every sequence for
which ll z, - zo ll approaches 0 as p and' q approach o, is shown to converge
to an eiement z so that the space of sequences is complete. This is a vital
property.
Schmidt next introduces the notion of a (strongly) closed subspace. A
subset I of his space I/ is said to be a closed subspace if it is a closed subset
in the sense of the convergence just defined and if it is algebraically closed;
that is, it w1 and u2 are elements of l, then a1a1 * a2u2, where a1 and a2
are any complex numbers, is also an element of l. Such closed subspaces are
shown to exist. One merely takes any sequence {z'} of linearly independent
elements and takes all finite linear combinations of elements of {2,}' The
closure of this collection of elements is an algebraically closed subspace'
Now let A be any fixed closed subspace. Schmidt first proves that if z
is any element of the space, there exist unique elements a;1 and zo, such that
z : wr * rl, where w, is in A and a]2 is orthogonal to l, which means that
zr..r, is orthogonal to every element in ,4. (This result is today called the
projection ih.o..-; zr, is the projection of z in ,4.) Further, llro2ll :
min lly - zll where y is any element in ,4 and this minimum is assumed
only for y -- ur. llwrll is called the distance between z znd A'
ro84
In 1907 both Schmidt and Fr6chet remarked that the space of square
summable (Lebesgue integrable) functions has a geometry completely
analogous to the Hilbert space of sequences. This analogy was elucidated
when, some months later, Riesz, making use of the Riesz-Fischer theorem
(Chap. 45, sec. 4), which establishes a one-to-one correspondence between
Lebesgue measurable square integrable functions and square summable
sequences ofreal numbers, pointed out that in the set Z2 ofsquare summable
functions a distance can be defined and one can use this to build a geometry
of this space of functions. This notion of distance between any two square
summable functions of the space 12, all defined on an interval la, bl, was
in fact also defined by Frichet rs as
(r) - g(x))2 dx,
where the integral is understood in the Lebesgue sense; and it is also under-
stood that two functions that differ only on a set ofmeasure 0 are considered
equal. The square of the distance is also called the mean square deviation
of the functions. The scalar product o[;f and g is defined to be (/ g) :
[l-f@e@ /x. Functions for which ("f, d
: 0 are called orthogonal. The
Schwarz inequality,
t JG)sG) dx <
and other properties that hold in the space of square summable sequences'
apply to the function space ; in particular this class of square summable
functions forms a complete space. Thus the space of square summable
functions and the space of square summable sequences that are the Fourier
coemcients of these functions with respect to a fixed complete orthonormal
system of functions can be identified.
So far as abstract function spaces are concerned, we should recall
(Chap. 45, sec. 4) the introduction of Zp spaces, I < P < o, by Riev.
ih.r" ,p"".. are also complete in the metric d("fr,"f) : (ll tt, - -frlo d*)'t' .
Though we shall soon look into additional creations in the area of
abstract spaces, the next developments concern functionals and operators.
In the 1907 paper just referred to, in which he introduced the metric or
icart for functions in Z2 space, and in another paper of that year,ls Frdchet
proved that lor every continuous linear functional U(f) defined on 12 there
is a unique u(x) in L2 such that fot every J in L2
u(f) : [' .r@),{,) 0,.

18. Comp. Rend.,444, 1907, l4l'l-16.
19. Amcr. Math. Soc. Trans.,8, 1907,433-46.
LINEAR roB5
This result generalizes one obtained by Hadamard rn 1903.20 In 1909

Riesz2l generalized this result by expressing U(f) as a Stieltjes integral;
that is,
u(J) : !' fl*) out4.

Riesz himself generalized this result to linear functionals -.4 that satisly the
condition that for all f in Le
A(.f) s ulf vav a,]''"

where M depends only on,4. Then there is a function a(x) in Lq, unique up
to the addition ofa function with zero integral, such that fot allf in Le
(2) u(f) : J' a@)f(x) dx.

This result is called the Riesz representation theorem.
The central part of functional analysis deals with the abstract theory
of the operators that occur in differential and integral equations. This
theory unites the eigenvalue theory of differential and integral equations
and linear transformations operating in z-dimensional space. Such an
operator, for example,
cA) : I' kQ'Y)f(Y) dY
for given ft, assigns;f to g and satisfies some additional conditions. In the
notation ,4 for the abstract operator and the notation C: Af' linearity
means
(3) A(ilfi + : ArAfL +

^J) ^24f2,
where ), is any real or complex constant. The indefinite integral g(x) :
lltfr) at and the derivative J'@) : Df(x)
of the
are linear operators for the
operator I means that if the
[roper classes of functions. Continuity
sequence offunctionslf approachesrfin the sense ol the limit in the space of
functions, then Af, must approach ff
The abstract analogue olwhat one finds in integral equations when the
kernel ,t(:, y) is symmetric is the self-adjointness property of the operator -,4.
If fior any two lunctions
(Af,,.f,) : ("f,, Af,),
20. Comp. Rend., 136, 1903, 351-54 : (Euures, l, 405-8.

21. Comp. Rend., 149, 1909,974-77 and Ann. de I'Ecole Norm. Sup.,28' l9l l, 33 tr'
'
ro86 FUNCTIONAL ANALYS$
#nerc (Afr, f2) denotes the inner or scalar product of two functions of the
,p."., thi., ,4 is said to be self-adjoint. In the case of integral equations, if
dY'
I:k@'Y)r(Y)
then
'':
(Ar,,r,) : t:t:k@'Y)r1@)J'(x) ds dx
(.f,, AJ,) : I: I: k@, Y)f'(Y)f'(x) dY dx'
and(Afr,jr) : (.fr, AJr) if the kernel is symmetric. For arbitrary self-adjoint

opera;;-the eigenvalues are real, and the eigenfunctions corresponding to
distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal to each other.
e lealttry start on the abstract operator theory, which is the core of
functional analysis, was made by Riesz in his l9l0 Matlumatische Annalen
paper, in which he introduced Ie spaces (Chap.45, sec' 4)' He set out in
ih"t ptp"t to generalize the solutions of the integral equation
d(,) - )i: K@, t)S$) dt : f(x)

to functions in Ie spaces. Riesz thought of the expression
xg, t14py dt
[b
as a transformation acting on the functiond(t). He called it a functional
transformation and denoted it by f(d(r)). Moreover, since the d(') with
which Riesz was concerned were in Lt space, the transformation takes
functions into the same or another space. In particular a transformation or
operator that takes functions of Lp into functions ofzp is called linear in zp
iiit satisfies (3) and if 2-is bounded; that is, there is a constant M such that
for all;tin I" that satisfy
r lf(x)1'?dx < L
then
l' trtft4\, rr = Me.

Later the least upper bound of such Mwas called the norm of Tand denoted
uv ilril.
ro87
Riesz also introduced the notion of the adjoint or transposed operator

for 7. For any g in Zc and 7 operating in Le,
(4)
t 7'(f(x))g(x) dx
defines for fixed g and varying;f in Lp a functional on Ze. Hence by the

Riesz representation theorem there is a function $(x) in Lq, unique up to a
function whose integral is 0, such that
(5)
[' r1y@y1g1*) * : I: f@){,(x) dx.
The adjoint or transpose of 7, denoted by 7t, is now defined to be that
operator in Zq, depending for fixed 7 only on g, which assigns to g the ry' of
equation (5); that is, T*(S) : f. (In modern notation 7* satisfies (A g) :
(f, f*d.) 7"* is a linear transformation in Zq and ilf*il : ilf fl.
Riesz now considers the solution ol
(6) r($(x)) : f(x),
where 7is a linear transformation in Le,Jis known, and { is unknown. He
proves that (6) has a solution if and only if
l[' tat rat *l = * $' 1

r*1s1*;y ;' d,)"'
for all g in Zq. He is thereby led to the notion of the inverse transformation
or operator T -r and. in the very same thought to T'- r. With the aid of the
adjoint operator he proves the existence of the inverses.
In his l9l0 paper Riesz introduced the notation
(7) $(x) - rK@@)) : "f(*),
where r( now stands for LD If ix, t) * tlt and, where * stands for the function
on which r( operates, His additional results are limited to Za wherein
K : K*. To treat the eigenvalue problem olintegral equations he introduces
Hilbert's notion of complete continuity, but now formulated for abstract
operators. An operator K in Lz is said to be completely continuous if r( maps
every weakly convergent sequence (Chap. 45, sec. 4) of functions into a
strongly convergent one, that is, {;f} converging weakly implies {l((/")}
converging strongly. He does prove that the spectrum of (7) is discrete (that
is, there is no continuous spectrum of a symmetric r() and that the eigen-
functions associated with the eigenvalues are orthogonal.
Another approach to abstract spaces, using the notion of a norm, was
also initiated by Riesz.2' However, the general definition of normed spaces
22. Acta Math'41, 1918, 7l-98.

IOBB FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS
was given during the years 1920 to 1922 by Stef,an Banach (1892-1945),
Hans Hahn (1879-1934), Eduard Helly (1884-1943), and Norbert Wiener
(1894-1964). Though there is much overlap in the work of these men and
the question of priority is difficult to settle, it is Banach's work that had the
greatest influence. His motivation was the generalization ofintegral equations.
The essential feature of all this work, Banach's in particular,2s was to
set up a space with a norm but one which is no longer defined in terms ofan
inner product. Whereas in L2, llfll : ("f,f)''' it is not possible to define the
norm of a Banach space in this way because an inner product is no longer
available.
Banach starts v/ith a space .E of elements denoted by x, g, 2,.. ., whereas
a, b, c,. ..
denote real numbers. The axioms for his space are divided into
three groups. The first group contains thirteen axioms which specify that
E is a commutative group under addition , that E is closed under multipli-
cation by a real scalar, and that the familiar associative and distributive
relations are to hold among various operations on the real numbers and
the elements.
The second group of axioms characterizes a norm on the elements
(vectors) of.E. The norm is a real-valued function defined on .E and denoted
by ||"il. For any real number a and, any.r in E the norm has the following
proPerties :
(a) ll*ll > 0;

(U) llrll : 0 if and only if x : 0;
:
(") ll*ll l,l.ll*ll;
(d) llr + yll < ll,ll + llyll.
The third group contains just a completeness axiom, which states that
if {x,} is a Cauchy sequence in the norm, i.e. if rrll : 0, then
nlim llr" -
there is an element x in .E such that lim llx, - xll : 0.
A space satisfying these three groups of axioms is called a Banach space
or a complete normed vector space. Though a Banach space is more general
than a Hilbert space, because the inner Product of two elements is not
presupposed to define the norm, as a consequence the key notion of two
elements being orthogonal is lost in a Banach space that is not also a Hilbert
space. The first and third sets of conditions hold also for Hilbert space, but
the second set is weaker than conditions on the norm in Hilbert space.
Banach spaces include Ze spaces, the space of continuous functions, the
space of bounded measurable functions, and other spaces, provided the
appropriate norm is used.
With the concept of the norm Banach is able to prove a number of
23. Fundamaia Mathcmaticae,3, 1922, 133-81.

roBg
familiar facts for his spaces. One of the key theorems states: Let {r,} be a
set of elements of E such that
\ llr,ll < -.
Then )f,=r.f,p converges in the norm to an element.z of E.
After proving a number of theorems, Banach considers operators defined
on the space but whose range is in another space Er, which is also a Banach
space. An operator .F is said to be continuous at .ro relative to a set I if
.F(.t) is defined for all x of A; xo belongs to I and to the derived set of ,4;
and whenever {*,} is a sequence of I with limit xo, then F(x,) approaches
F(xo). He also defines unilorm continuity of F relative to a set I and then
turns his attention to sequences ol operators. The sequence {F,} of operators
is said to converge in the norm toFon a set ,4 if for every x in A, lim F"(x) :
F (*).
An important class of operators introduced by Banach is the set of
continuous additive ones. An operator tr' is additive if for all x and y,
F(x + y): F(x) + F(y). An additive continuous operator proves to have
the property that F (ax) : aF (x) for any real number a. If F is additive and
continuous at one element (point) of E, it follows that it is continuous
everywhere and it is bounded ; that is, there is a constant M, depending
onlyonF,sothat llF(r) l] < Mllxll for every.t of -8. Another theorem asserts
that if {f',} is a sequence of additive continuous operators and if F is an
additive operator such that for each x, lil;: Fn@) : F(*), then F is contin-
uous and there exists an rVI such that for all n, llF"(x) il < Ull*ll.
In this paper Banach proves theorems on the solution of the abstract
formulation of integral equations. If F is a continuous operator with domain
and range in the space E and if there exists a number M, O < M < 1, so
that for all x' and x' in E, llr(r') - r(r') ll < M ll*' -.r"ll, then there
exists a unique element x in E that satisfies F(t) : v. More important is
the theorem: Consider the equation
(8) +hF(x):s
where y is a known function in .8, F, is an additive continuous operator with
domain and range in E, and ft is a real number. Let M be the least upper
bound of all those numbers M' satisfying llf (") ll < M'llxll tor all r. Then
for every y and every value of i satisfying lhMl < 1 there exists a lunction r
satisfying (B) and
X:! +> (-11"hF,",1r1,

ro9o FT'NCTIONAL ANALYSIS
where F(")(y) : ,io(F('-1)(y)). This result is one form of the spectral radius
theorem, and it is a generalization of Volterra's method of solving integral
equations.
Banach 19292{ introduced another important notion in the subject
in
of functional analysis, the notion of the dual or adjoint space of a Banach
space. The idea was also introduced independently by Hahn,2s but Banach's
work was more thorough. This dual space is the space of all continuous
bounded linear functionals on the given space. The norm for the space of
functionals is taken to be the bounds of the functionals, and the space proves
to be a complete normed linea1 space, that is, a Banach space' Actually
Banach's work here generalizes Riesz's work on LD arrd Zq spaces, where
C : pt(p - I), because the I{ space is equivalent
to the dual in Banach's
sense of the L space. The connection with Banach's work is made evident
by the Riesz representation theorem (2). In other words, Banach's dual
space has the same relationship to a given Banach space E that Lq has to Lp'
Banach stars with the definition of a continuous linear functional, that
is, a continuous real-valued function whose domain is the space E, and
proves that each functional is bounded. A key theorem, which generalizes
onc in Hahn's work, is known today as the Hahn-Banach theorem' Letp be
a real-valued functional defined on a complete normed linear space R and
Iet p satis$ for all x and Y in fi
(") ?(x + y) < P(*) + P@);

(b) P()t) : r!@) for I > 0.
Then there exists an additive functional;f on -R that satisfies
-?(-x) <f(x) < ?(x)

for all * in .R. There are a number of other theorems on the set of continuous
functionals defined on iR.
The work on functionals leads to the notion of adjoint operator' Let 'R
and S be two Banach spaces and let U be a continuous, linear operator with
domain in rR and range in S. Denote by R* and S* the set of bounded linear
functionals defined on -R and S respectively. Then U induces a mapping
from.S* into.R* as follows: If g is an element of S*, then g(U(x)) is well-
defined for all * in rR. But by the linearity of U and g this is also a linear
functional defined on B, that is, g(t/(r)) is a member of 'R*' Put otherwise,
il U(x) : y, then g(y) :J@) wheref is a functional of R*' The induced
mapping lJ' from,sr to rR* is called the adjoint of U.
With this notion Banach proves that if U* has a continuous inverse,
then y : U(*) is solvable for any y of S. Also if J : U*1t1 is solvable for
24. Studia Matlumatica, l, 1929, 211-16.

25. Jour. fir Math., 157, 1927,214-29.
THE AXIOMATIZATION OF HILBERT SPACE I09r
every Jf of rR*, then U - 1 exists and is continuous on the range of U, where the
range of U in S is the set of all y for which there is a g ofS* with the prop-
erty that g(y) : 0 whenever U* (d : 0. (This last statement is a general-
ized form of the Fredholm alternative theorem.)
Banach applied his theory ofadjoint operators to Riesz operators, which
Riesz introduced in his l91B paper. These are operators Uof the form U :
I - AV where / is the identity operator and Z is a completely continuous
operator. The abstract theory can then be applied to the space Z2 of func-
tions defined on [0, l] and to the operators
ua@) : *(r) - lJ' Kg, t)x(t) dt,
where Jot Jl K2$, t) ds dt < a. The general theory, applied to
(s) y(s) : x(s) - t)r.(t) dt

^1" "U,
and its associated transposed equation
(10) -f(r) : g(r) - t !' x{t, s) s(t) dt,
tells us that if lo is an eigenvalue of (9), then ls is an eigenvalue of (10)

and conversely. Further, (9) has a finite number of linearly independent
eigenfunctions associated with lo and the same is true of (10). Also (9) does
not have a soluiion for all y when I : io. In fact a necessary and sufficient
condition that (9) have a solution is that the a conditions
Jlultsr'<,t
a, : o, i:1'2,"',n
be satisfied, where gjl),. . ., grn) is a set of linearly independent solutions of
fL
0 : s(r) - K(t,s)g(t) dt.
ôJo
4. The Axiomatization of Hilbert Space

The theory of function spaces and operators seemed in the 1920s to be
heading only toward abstraction for abstraction's sake. Even Banach made
no use of his work. This state of affairs led Hermann Weyl to remark, "It
was not merit but a favor offortune when, beginning in 1923 . . . the spectral
theory of Hilbert space was discovered to be the adequate mathematical
instrument of quantum mechanics." Quantum mechanical research showed
that the observables of a physical system can be represented by linear
symmetric operators in a Hilbert space and the eigenvalues and eigenvectors
(eigenfunctions) of the particular operator that represents energy are the
ro92 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSE
energy levels of an electron in an atom and corresponding stationary quan-

tum states of the system. The differences in two eigenvalues give the fre-
quencies of the emitted quantum of light and thus define the radiation
spectrum of the substance. In 1926 Erwin Schr<idinger presented his quan-
tum theory based on differential equations. He also showed its identity
with Werner Heisenberg's theory of infinite matrices ( 1925)' which the
latter had applied to quantum theory. But a general theory unifying Hilbert's
work and the eigenfunction theory for differential equations was missing.
The use of operators in quantum theory stimulated work on an abstract
theory of Hilbert space and operators; this was first undertaken by John von
Neumann (1903-57) in 1927 . His approach treated both the space ol square
summable sequences and the space of 12 functions defined on some common
interval-
In two papers26 von Neumann presented an axiomatic approach to
Hilbert space and to operators in Hilbert space. Though origins of von
Neumann's axioms can be seen in the work of Norbert Wiener, Weyl, and
Banach, von Neumann's work was more complete and influential. His major
objective was the formulation of a general eigenvalue theory for a large
class of operators called Hermitian.
He introduced an L2 space of complex-valued, measurable, and square
integrable functions defined on any measurable set E of the complex plane.
He also introduced the analogue, the complex sequence space, that is, the
set of all sequences of complex numbers dy dz, . . . with the property that
2f=rlool'< co. The Riesz-Fischer theorem had shown that there exists a
one-to-one correspondence between the functions of the function space and
the sequences of the sequence space, as follows: In the function sPace
choose a complete orthonormal sequence of functions {{"}. Then if;[ is an
element of the function space, the Fourier coefficients ofll in an expansion
with respect to the {{,} are a sequence of the sequence space; and conversely,
if one starts with such a sequence there is a unique (up to a function whose
integral is 0) function of the L2 function space which has this sequence as
its Fourier coefficients with respect to the {{,}.
Further, if one defines the inner product ("f, d i" the function space by
(,f, e) : l,lQ)rt-l 0",

where g(.2) is the complex conjugate of g(z), and in the sequence space for
two sequences a and b by
(o,b) :20,u-
p=l
then, iflf corresponds to a and g to b, (f, g) : (o, b).
26. Math. Ann., 102, 1929/30, 49-131, and 370-427 : Coll. Works,2,3-143.
THE A)iIOMATIZATION OF I{ILBERT SPACE ro93
A Hermitian operator R in these spaces is defined to be a linear operator

which has the property that for all f and g in its domain @f, S) : U, RS) .
Likewise, in the sequence space, (Ra, b) : (a, Rb).
Von Neumann's theory prescribes an axiomatic approach to both the
function space and the sequence space. He proposed the following axiomatic
foundation :
(A) 11 is a linear vector space. That is, there is an addition and scalar
multiplication defined on .FI so that if f, and 1f, are elements of I/ and a1
and. a, are any complex numbers, then arf, I a2f2 is also an element of 1/.
(B) There exists on F/ an inner product or a complex-valued function of

any two vectorsrf and g, denoted by ("f, d, with the properties: (") (of, d :
:
o("f,d; (b) (-f, +-f,,d U,,d + (f,,d; k) U,d :TiA; @ U,.f) >
o; (e) (-f,-f) : 0 if and only if;f : 0.
Two elements ;f and g are called orthogonal if (J C) : 0. The norm
of;f, denoted Uv il"fil, is lTf,rt. The quantity ll,f - gil defines a metric on
the space.
(C) In the metric just defined ,F1 is separable, that is, there exists in I/ a
countable set dense in I/ relative to the metric ll/ - gll.
(D) For every positive integral z there exists a set of ,, linearly independent
elements ol .FL
(E) fl is complete. That is, if {r} is such that ll"f" - "f"ll approaches 0 as
m and. n approach oo, then there is an./in 11 such that ll"f - "f"ll approaches
0 as a approaches o. (This convergence is equivalent to strong convergence.)
From these axioms a number of simple properties follow: the Schwarz

inequality ll ("4 S) ll < il"f il ilgll, the fact that any complete orthonormal set
of elements of 11 must be countable, and Parseval's inequality, that is,
>f=, llL[ 6)ll' < ll.fll'.
Von Neumann then treats linear subspaces of If and projection opera-
tors. If ,44 and N are closed subspaces of 11, then M - N is defined to be the
set of all elements of M that are orthogonal to every element of tr/. The
projection theorem follows: Let M be a closed subspace of 1L Then any;[
of H can be written in one and only one way asf : g + h where g is in M
and I is in H - M. The projection operator P, is defined by P*(fl : g;
that is, it is the operator defined on all of 11 which projects the elements../
into their components in M.
In his second paper von Neumann introduces two topologies in f1, strong
and weak. The strong topology is the metric topology defined through the
norm. The weak topology, which we shall not make precise, provides a
system of neighborhoods associated with weak convergence.
ro94 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS
Von Neumann Presents a number ol results on operators in Hilbert

space. The linearity of the operators is presupposed, and integration is
generally understood in the sense of Lebesgue-Stieltjes' A linear bounded
transformation or operator is one that transforms elemcnts of one Hilbert
space into another, satisfies the linearity condition (3), and is bounded; that
is, there exists a number M such that for all f of the space on which the
operator .R acts
llR("fl11 < Mil"ril.

The smallest possible value of M is called the modulus of R. This last con-
dition is equivalent to the continuity of the oPerator. Also continuity at a
single point together with linearity is sufficient to guarantee continuity at
all points and hence boundedness.
There is an adjoint oPerator R*; for Hermitian oPerators R : R*, and
.R is said to be self-adjoint. If RR* : .R*-R for any operator' then R is said
to be normal. If nn'i : R*R : I, where 1 is the identity operator, then rR
is the analogue of an orthogonal transformation and is called unitary' For
aunitaryn, ilft("fl|| : ll-fll.
Another of von Neumann's results states that if rR is Hermitian on all
of the Hilbert space and satisfies the weaker closed condition, namely that
iffi approaches/and ft(.;f) approaches g so that R(/) : g, then 'R is bounded'
F".the", if rR is Hermitian, the operator 1 - lft has an inverse for all complex
and real I exterior to an interval (m, M) of the real axis in which the values
of(R(f),f)liewhenll"fl|:'.Amorefundamentalresultisthattoevery
linear-bounded Hermitian oPerator.R there correspond two operators 'E-
and E* (EinzeltrarcJormationen) having the following properties:
(a) E-E- : E-, E*E, : E*,1 : E- * E+.
(b) ,E- and E* are commutative and commutative with any operator
commutative with R.
(c) XE- and .R.E* are respectively negative and positive (RE* is positive
if (nE+(/),/) > 0).
(d) For all;f such that RJ : 0, E --f : 0 and E*-f : -f.
Von Neumann also established a connection between Hermitian and unitary
operators, namely, if U is unitary and rR is Hermitian, then U : etn'
Von Neumann subsequently extended his theory to unbounded opera-
tors; though his contributions and those of others are of major importance,
,., u""orr-rt oi these developments would take us too far into recent develop-
ments.
Applications of functional analysis to the generalized moment problem,
statisti;;l mechanics, existence and uniqueness theorems in partial differen-
tial equations, and fixed-point theorems have been and are being made'
FunctLnal analysis now plays a role in the calculus of variations and in the
BTBLTOGRAPHY IO95
theory ol representations of continuous compact groups. It is also involved

in algebra, approximate computations, topology, and real variable theory.
Despite this variety of applications, there has been a deplorable absence
of new applications to the large problems of classical analysis. This failure
has disappointed the founders of functional analysis.
Bibliography
Bernkopll M.: "The Development of Function Spaces with Particular Reference
to their Origins in Integral Equation Theory," Archiae.for Histary of Exact
Sciences, 3, 1966, l-96.
"A History of Infinite Matrices," Arehiae for Hislory of Exact Scitrces, 4,
1968, 308-58.
Bourbaki, N.: Eliments d'histoire dcs mathimatiqucs, Hermann, 1960, 230-45.
Dresden, Arnold: "Some Recent Work in the Calculus of Variations," ,{zrr,
Math. Soc. Bull., 32, 1926,475-521.
FrCchet, M.': Notice sur les traaaux scientifques dt M. Maurice Frichat, Hermann, 1933.
Hellinger, E. and O. Toeplitz: " Integralgleichungen und Gleichungen mit
unendlichvielen Unbekannten," Euyk. dcr Math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner,
1923-27, Vol.2, Part III,2nd halt 1335-1597.
Hildebrandt, T. H. : " Linear Functional Transformations in General Spaces,"
Amer. Math. Soc. Bull.,37, 1931, lA5-212.
Ldvy, Paul: "Jacques Hadamard, sa vie et son @uvre," L'Enscigtutunt MarMma-
tique, (2), 13, 1967, l-24.
McShane, E. J. : " Recent Developmens in the Calculus of Variations," lnrar.
M ath. Soc. Semicentcnnial Publications, 2, I 938, 69-97.
Neumann, John von: Collected Works, Pergamon Press, 1961, Vol. 2.
Sanger, Ralph G.: " Functions of Lines and the Calculus of Variations," Uniursiq
qf Chhago Contributions to the Calculus of Variations for 1931-32, University of
Chicago Press, 1933, 193-293.
Tonelli, L.: "The Calculus of Variations," Anur. Math. Soc. Bull.,3l, 1925, 16:l-72.
Volterra, Yito: Opere matematil:\u,5 vols., Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 195M2.
47
Divergent Series
It is indeed a strange vicissitude of our science that those
series which early in the century were supposed to be banished
once and for all from rigorous mathematics should, at its
close, be knocking at the door for readmission.
JAMES PIERPONT
The series is divergent; therefore we may be able to do

something with it. oLrvER HEAvTSIDE
l. Introduction
The serious consideration from the late nineteenth century onward of a
subject such asdivergent series indicates how radically mathematicians have
revised their own conception of the nature of mathematics. whereas in the
first part of the nineteenth century they accepted the ban on divergent
series on the ground that mathematics was restricted by some inner require-
ment or the dictates ofnature to a fixed class of correct concepts, by the end
of the century they recognized their freedom to entertain any ideas that
seemed to offer any utility.
We may recall that divergent series were used throughout the eighteenth
century, with more or less conscious recognition of their divergence, because
they did give useful approximations to lunctions when only a lew terms were
,rt"d. Afti. the dawn of rigorous mathematics with Cauchy, most mathema-
ticians followed his dictates and rejected divergent series as unsound.
However, a few mathematicians (Chap. 40, sec. 7) continued to defend
divergent series because they were impressed by their usefulness, either for
the computation of functions or as analytical equivalents of the functions
from which they were derived. Still others defended them because they
l
were a method of discovery. Thus De Morgan says, "We must admit that
many series are such as we cannot at Present safely use, except as a means of
discovery, the results of which are to be subsequently verified and the most
l. Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc., 8, Part II, 1844, 182-203, pub' 1849'
ro96
togT
determined rejector of all divergent series doubtless makes this use of them
in his closet. . . ."
Astronomers continued to use divergent series even after they were
banished because the exigencies of their science required them for purposes
of computation. Since thc first few terms ofsuch series offered useful numerical
approximations, the astronomers ignored the fact that the series as a whole
were divergent, whereas the mathematicians, concerned with the behavior
not ofthe first ten or twenty terms but with the character ofthe entire series,
could not base a case for such series on the sole ground of utility.
However, as we have already noted (Chap. 40, sec. 7), both Abel and
Cauchy were not without concern that in banishing divergent series they
were discarding something useful. Cauchy not only continued to use them
(see below) but wrote a paper with the title "Sur l'emploi l6gitime des
s6ries divergentes," 2 in which, speaking of the Stirling series lor log I(r)
or logrn! (Chap. 20, sec. 4), Cauchy points out that the series, though
divergent for all values of x, can be used in computing log f (x) when x
is large and positive. In fact he showed that having fixed the number n of
terms taken, the absolute error committed by stopping the summation at
the nth term is less than the absolute value of the next succeeding term,
and the error becomes smaller as x increases. Cauchy tried to understand
why the approximation furnished by the series was so good, but failed.
The usefulness of divergent series ultimately convinced mathematicians
that there must be some feature which, if culled out, would reveal why they
furnished good approximations. As Oliver Heaviside put it in the second
volume of Electromagnetic Theory ( 1899), " I must say a few words on the
subject of generalized differentiation and divergent series. . . . It is not easy
to get up any enthusiasm after it has been artificially cooled by the wet
blanket of the rigorists. . .. There will have to be a theory of divergent
series, or say a larger theory offunctions than the pres:nt, including conver-
gent and divergent series in one harmonious whole." When Heaviside made
this remark, he was unaware that some steps had already been taken.
The willingness of mathematicians to move on the subject of divergent
series was undoubtedly strengthened by another influence that had gradually
penetrated the mathematical atmosphere: non-Euclidean geometry and the
new algebras. The mathematicians slowly began to appreciate that mathe-
matics is man-made and that Cauchy's definition of convergence could no
longer be regarded as a higher necessity imposed by some superhuman
power. In the last part ofthe nineteenth century they succeeded in isolating
the essential property of those divergent series that furnished useful approxi-
mations to functions. These series were called asymptotic by Poincar6, though
during the century they were called semiconvergent, a term introduced by
2. Comp. Rend., 17, 1843, 370-76 -- (Ewres, (l),8, 18-25.

rog8 DIVERGENT SERIES
Legendre in his Essai de la thCorie dcs nombres (179S, p' 13) and used also for
oscillating series.
The-theory of divergent series has two major themes' The first is the
one already briefly described, namely, that some of these series may,
for a
fixed number of terms, approximate a function better and better as the
variable increases. In fact, Legendre, in his Traiti des fonctions elliptiques
(1825-28), had already characterized such series by the property that the
er.o, by stopping at any one term is ofthe order ofthe first term
"o--itt.d
omitted. The second theme in the theory of divergent series is the concept of
summability. It is possible to define the sum of a series in entirely new ways
that give finite sums to series that are divergent in Cauchy's sense'
2. Tlu Idomal tJses oJ Diaergent Series

Wehavehadoccasiontodescribeeighteenth.centuryworkinwhichbot}r
convergent and divergent series were employed' In the nineteenth century'
both bJfore and after Cauchy banned divergent series, some mathematicians
and physicists continued to use them. One new application was the evalua-
tion ;f integrals in series. Of course the authors were not aware at the time
that they *ire finding either complete asymPtotic series expansions or first
terms of asymptotic series expansions of the integrals'
The asymptotic evaluation of integrals goes back at least to Laplace'
lnhisTuorieanalytiquedlsprobabilitis(l8l2)sLaplaceobtainedbyintegra-
tion by parts the expansion for the error function
ErtG):l;,-,"*:';{, - #*+n,y- #o-,ru. }

He remarked that the series is divergent, but he used it to compute E'f'(T)
for large values of L
Laplace also Pointed out in the same booka that
I 6{r){"l,a\'r*
when s is large depends on the values of u(x) near its stationary points'
that
:
is, the valuei of * for which u'(r) 0' LaPlace used this observation to
Prove that
s! -ss+ltrc-s\/z;(, -*o*#,- ),
a result that can be obtained as well from Stirling's approximation to
log s !
(Chap. 20, sec' 4).

3. Third ed., 1820, 8&109 - CEuot*, 7,89-ll0'
4. CEwres, 7 , 128-31.
THE INFORMAL USES OF DIVERGENT SERIES ro99
Laplace had occasion, in his Thiorie analytique des probabilitis,s to consider

integrals of the form
(l) fl4 : [' s(tlexhtt) clt,
where g may be complex, h and t are real, and * is large and positive; he
remarked that the main contribution to the integral comes from the im-
mediate neighborhood of those points in the range of integration in which
i(l) attains its absolute maximum. The contribution ol which Laplace
spoke is the first term of what we would call today an asymptotic series
evaluation of the integral .Il h(t) has just one maximum at r:4, then
Laplace's result is
f x) -
(
s ( a) e
* h
"' J:,*' r,,
as r approaches o.
If in place of (l) the integral to be evaluated is
(2) "f(4
: s(t)et,h(,> dt
['
when I and x are real and .r is large, then lrtrtrrtrl is a constant and Laplace's
method does not apply. In this case a method adumbrated by Cauchy in
his major paper on the propagation of waves,6 now called the principle of
stationary phase, is applicable. The principle states that the most relevant
contribution to the integral comes from the immediate neighborhoods of
the stationary points of h(t), that is, the points at which n'(t) : g. 1'5i.
principle is intuitively reasonable because the integrand can be thought of
as an oscillating current or wave with amplitude lg(r)1. If , is time, then the
velocity of the wave is proportional to xh'(t), and if n'(l) 10, the velocity
ofthe oscillations increases indefinitely as r becomes infinite. The oscillations
are then so rapid that during a full period g(t) is approximately constant
and xh(t) is approximately linear, so that the integral over a full period
vanishes. This reasoning fails at a value of I where h'(t) :0. Thus the
stationary points of h(t) are likely to furnish the main contribution to the
asymptotic value of/(x).If z is a value of t at which h'(t) : g^ 6h'(r) > O,
then
"f{4 - JZ-1'1,1
g(r)ctxhG)+t"t4
as * becomes infinite.
This principle was used by Stokes in evaluating Airy's integral (see
5. Third ed., 1820, Vol. l, Part 2, Chap. | : CEuares,7,89-110.

6. Min. dc I'Acad. des Sci., Inst. France, l, 1827, Note 16 : (Ewres, (l), l, 230.
I IOO DIVERGENT SERIES
below) in a paper of 1856? and was formulated explicitly by Lord Kelvin'8

The first satisfactory proof of the principle was given by George N' Watson
(l886-1965).,
In the first few decades ofthe nineteenth century, Cauchy and Poisson
evaluated many integrals containing a parameter in series of powers ol the
parameter. In the case of Poisson the integrals arose in geophysical heat
conduction and elastic vibration problems, whereas Cauchy was concerned
with water waves, optics, and astronomy. Thus Cauchy, working on the
diffraction of light,lo gave divergent series expressions for the Fresnel
integrals :
L -'(; o)r.:i- **";m" +

Msin$m2
:
i. ,t (; .'\ a" f, - u ""'im' -
Nsir!2m',
where
I 1.3 1.3.5.7 r 1.3.5
M: -i---; * --------=-
mlf - m'n" m'n- -"'' "^/-----!...
- m3o2 m1t4
During the nineteenth century several other methods, such as the

method of steepest descent, were invented to evaluate integrals. The lull
theory of all these methods and the proper understanding ol what the
approximations amounted to, whether single terms or full series, had to
await the creation of the theory of asymptotic series'
Many of the integrals that were expanded by the above-described
methods arose first as solutions ol differential equations. Another use of
divergent series was to solve differential equations directly. This use can be
traceJ back at least as far as Euler's work11 wherein, concerned with
solving the non-uniform vibrating-string problem (Chap' 22, sec' 3), he gave
asy*ptotic series solution of an ordinary differential equation that is
"r,
essentially Bessel's equation of order rl2, whete r is integral'
12 gave the asymptotic form of J"(*) for large *:
Jacobi
l^(x) -(3)"["* 0 -T- A{, -

(4"' --;:l*lf, - 3')
. }-
.i,, (, -
T -i){!+c! -
7. Trans. Camb. Phil. Sor.,9, 1856, 166-87 : Math' and PlEs' Papers,2,329-57 '
8. Phil. Mag., (5),23, 1887,252-55: Math. and Phgs' Papers,4,303-6'
9.Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.. 19, 1918, 49-55.
10. Conp. Rend., 15, 1842, 554-56 and 573-78 = (Euures, (l)' 7, 149-57 '
ll. Noi Comm. Acad. Sci. Pctrop.,9, 176213,246-304, pub' 1764 :
Oleru, (2), 10, 293-343'
12. Astronom. Nach.,28, 1849,65-94 : Werke,7,145-7+'
'I'HE INFORMAL USES OF DTVERGENT SERIES I IOI
A somewhat different use ofdivergent series in the solution o[differential

equations was introduced by Liouville. He soughtls approximate solutions
of the differential equation
+ (l2qo * q,)g :0,

(3)
*pa-
where p, qo, and 4, are positive functions of x and tr is a parameter; the
solution is to be obtained in a < x 3; b.Here, as opposed to boundary-value
problems where discrete values ofl are sought, he was interested in obtaining
some approximate form of y for large values of I. To do this he introduced
the variables
(4) t: I:.(se)',',',
d., . : (qo?)'tny
and obtained
d2w
__r
(5) )\2u : rut
dtz '
where
, : (qop)-',' fu ttol)''^ - fi.

He then used a process that amounts in modern language to the solution
by successive approximations of an integral equation of the Volterra type,
namely,
u(t) : ctcos,\, + c, sin lt - L: =+- r(s)a(s) ds'
Liouville now argued that for sufficiently large values of I the first approxi-
mation to the solutions of (5) should be
(6) to N c7 cos l, + c, sin trr,
Ifthe values of zz and I given by (4) are now used to obtain the approximate
solution ol (3), we have from (6) that
(7) , - ,,G#-.{^l-" (?)" ,,-} + c2TLqop)y4.t"{^l-, (';\''' *}

Though Liouville was not aware of it, he had obtained the first term of an
asymptotic series solution of (3) for large l.
ih. tu-. method was used by Greenra in the study of the propagation
13. Jour. de Math.,2' 1837, l6-35.

14. Trans. Camb. Phit. Soc., 6, 1837, 457-62 : Math. Papers,225-30'
I lo2 DIVERGENT SERIES
of waves in a channel. The method has been generalized slightly to equations

of the form
(8) y' * )r2q(x,l)y : 0,
in which I is a large positive Parameter and x may be real or complex. The

solutions are now usually expressed as
(e) y P q-1t4*p (t;rL ,','o,)lt. ,(i)]

The error term implies that the exact solution would contain a term
O(l/I)
F(r, l)i,\ where lF' (.r, ,\) | is bounded fior all x in the domain under considera-
tion and for tr > tro. The form of the error term is valid in a restricted
domain of the complex x-plane. Liouville and Green did not supply the
error terrn or conditions under which their solutions were valid. The more
general and precise approximation (9) is explicit in papers by Gregor
Wentzel (lB9B-),15 Hendrik A. Kramers (1894 1952),16 L6on Brillouin
(1889-1969),1? and Harold Jeffreys (l89l-),18 and is familiarly known as
the WKBJ solution. These men were working with Schrodinger's equation
in quantum theory.
In a paper read in lB50,re Stokes considered the value of Airy's integral
:
(10) w
[- ,orl{*" - mw) dw
for large lzl. This integral represents the strength of diffracted light near a
caustic. Airy had given a series for I'l in powers of m which, though conver-
gent for all rn, was not useful for calculation when lrzl is large. Stokes's
method consisted in forming a differential equation of which the integral
is a particular solution and solving the differential equation in terms of
divergent series that might be useful for calculation (he called such series
semiconvergent).
After showing that tJ : (tl2)\ta W satisfies the Airy differential equation
(l l) t!+iu:0,
dn' J
n: @'''
*,
Stokes proved that for positive z
(12) u - nn-,,n(a*"2 J4 + s,t"; dq)

Bn- 1 4(R
+
"^? J+ - s cos
3 E),
15. Zeit. fnr Plwsik, SA, 1926' 518-29.
16. Zeit. fiir Physik,39, 1926, 828-40.
17. Conp. Rend., 183, 1926' 24-26).
18. Proc. London Math- Soc., (2)' 23' 1923,428-36.
19. Trans. Canb. Phil. Soc., 9, 1856, 166-87 : Math. and Phys. Papers' 2,329-57'
TIIE FORMAL THEORY OF ASYMPTOTIC SERIES r r03
where
(r3) R: l
I.5.7.II .l I.5.7.II.13.I7 19.23....
1.2.162.3n3 | .2'3 '4 ' l6a '32no
^ t .s 1 .5.7. 11 ' 13' 17
(14) - +" '
": 1.2.3:mretx3)3i'z
The quantities A and"r-u1rr,1*
B that make U yield the integral were determined
by a special argument (wherein Stokes uses the principle of stationary phase)'
He also gave an analogous result for z negative.
The series (12) and the one for negative z behave like convergent series
for some number of terms but are actually divergent. Stokes observed that'
they can be used for calculation. Given a value ofz, one uses the terms from
the first up to the one that becomes smallest for the value of n in question'
He gave a qualitative argument to show why the series are useful for
numerical work.
Stokes encountered a special difficulty with the solutions of (lt) for
positive and negative z. He was not able to Pass from the series for which z
is positive to the series for which n is negative by letting rl vary through 0
because the series have no meaning lot n :0. He therefore tried to pass
from positive to negative a through complex values ol z, but this did not
yield the correct series and constant multipliers.
What Stokes did discover, after some struggle,2o was that if for a certain
range of the amplitude of n a general solution was rePresented by a certain
iinear combination of two asymptotic series each of which is a solution, then
in a neighboring range of the amplitude of z it was by no ineans necessary
for the same linear combination of the two fundamental asymptotic expan-
sions to represent the same general solution. He found that the constants
of the linear combination changed abruptly as certain lines given by amp'
z : const. were crossed. These are now called Stokes lines.
Though Stokes had been primarily concerned with the evaluation of
integrals, it was clear to him that divergent series could be used generally
to solve differential equations. Whereas Euler, Poisson, and others had
solved individual equations in such terms, their results appeared to be
tricks that produced answers for specific physical problems. Stokes actually
gave several examples in the 1856 and 1857 papers.
The above work on the evaluation of integrals and the solution of
differential equations by divergent series is a sample of what was done by
many mathematicians and physicists.
3. The Formal Theory of Asymptotic Series

The full recognition of the nature of those divergent series that are useful
in the representation and calculation of functions and a formal definition
20. Trans. Camb. PhiI. Soc., 10, 1857, 106-28 : Math. and Phys. Papers' 4,77-109'
r r04 DIVERGENT SERIES
of these series were achieved by Poincar6 and Stieldes independently in

l g86. Poincard called these series asymptotic while Stieltjes
continued to
use the term semiconvergent. Poincar62l took up the subject in order to
further the solution of linear differential equations. Impressed by the useful-
ness of divergent series in astronomy, he sought to determine which were
useful and *1y. He succeeded in isolating and formulating the essential
property. A series of the form
a, a"
(ls) a"*-+++"''
-xx'
where the a, are independent of *, is said to represent the function /('r)
asymptotically for large values of r whenever
(16) g*[rt,l - (" * f, +".?J] :'

for n : 0, l, 2,The series is generally divergent but may in special
3, . . . .
cases be convergent. The relationship of the series to;[('r) is denoted
by
.atdz,
.f (*) -*
-An+-+-=-l-"'
Such series are expansions of functions in the neighborhood of x @'

:
Poincar6 in his 1886 paper considered real x-values' However, the definition
holds also for complex x if x -'> oo is replaced by lxl -+ co, though the
validity ofthe representation may then be confined to a sector ofthe complex
plane with vertex at the origin.
The series (15) is asymptotic to /(.t) in the neighborhood ol r : co'
However, the definition has been generalized, and one speaks of the series
ao+aLxaarx2*"'
as asymPtotic to f (x) at r: 0 il
Iim
,+0 ,l [ro, - T''']
Though in the case of some asymptotic series one knows what error is
co..r-itteJ by stopping at a definite term, no such information about the
numerical ...o. i. k.ro*r, for general asymptotic series' However, asymptotic
series can be used to give rather accurate numerical results for large
x by
employing only those terms for which the magnitude of the terms decreases
as one'tak1s more and more terms. The order of the magnitude of
the error
at any stage is equal to the magnitude of the first term omitted'
21. Acta Math.,8, 1886,295-344 : (Euwes' 1,290-332'

TIIE FORMAL THEORY OF ASYMPTOTIC SERIES r r05
Poincar€ proved that the sum, difference, product, and quotient of

two functions are represented asymptotically by the sum, difference, product,
and quotient of their separate asymptotic series, provided that the constant
term in the divisor series is not zero. Also, if
.f(r)-oo+f,+ff+',
then
1o,
r, f(z) dz - C * aox + allogx - -r?-"' -!2
The use of integration involves a slight generalization of the original defini-

tion, namely,
6@) - l@) + s@)(o,+? +#+ )

if
4@)--f(*) -,ar,az,
_..........:-.i-^@^-r_.r-;.r...
-
g(,r) x x'
even whenlf(r) and g(r) do not themselves have asymptotic series represen-
tations. As for diflerentiation, il f '(x) is known to have an asymptotic series
expansion, then it can be obtained by differentiating the asymptotic series
for f (x).
Il a given function has an asymptotic series expansion it is unique,
but the converse is not true because, for example, (l + x) -1 and (l + e-')'
( 1 + x) - I have the same asymptotic expansion.
Poincari applied his theory of asymptotic series to differential equations,
and there are many such uses in his treatise on celestial mechanics, lzs
Mithodes nouaelles de la micanique cileste.22 The class of equations treated in
his 1886 paper is
(17) + P*-lx)y("') + "' + Ps(x)y : g
P^(x)y("'
where the Pr(x) are polynomials in x. Actually Poincar6 treated only the
second order case but the method applies to (17).
The only singular points of equation (17) are the zeros of P"(*) and
x : @. For a regular singular point (Stelle dzr Bestimmtheit ) there are con-
vergent expressions for the integrals given by Fuchs (Chap. 29' sec. 5).
Consider then an irregular singular point. By a linear transformation this
point can be removed to o, while the equation keeps its form. If Pn is of
the pth degree, the condition that x : co shall be a regular singular point
22. Yol.2. Chap. 8, t893.

DIVERGENT SDRIES
r ro6
is that the degrees ofPo-r, Pn-r,.'.,Ps be at mostl - l,P -2'"',p -n

-Fo.
respectively. u., irregular singular point one or more of these degrees
for a differential equation ofthe form
-.rst be g..u,"r. Poincard showed that
(17), wh"erein the degrees of the P, do not exceed the degree of Pn' there
exist n series of the form
c"*x"(Ao.** )
and the series satisfy the differential equation formally' He also showed
that
to each such series there corresponds an exact solution in the form an of
integral to which the series is asymptotic'
-Poincar6's
results are included in the following theorem due to Jakob
Horn (1867-19't6).23 He treats the equation
(18) ,<"t 1 ar(x)!@ - 1) +.. .* a^(x) g" : o,
where the coemcients are rational functions of r and are assumed to be

developable for large positive x in convergent or asymptotic series
of the
form
a,(t) : *,*V,.o *T *'# *...1, r: r,2,"',n,

*being some positive integer or 0. Iffor the above equation (18) the roots
mr,m1,..., z"'of the characteristic equation, that is' the algebraic equation
tno * "' + an'o : 0,
a1,6nn-r +
are distinct, equation (18) possesses z linearly independent
solutions
asymptotically for large positive values
!r,U2,...,y, whLh are developable
of * in the form
y, - strtrtso,>+, r : 1,2,.' ., n,
where J(*) is a polynomial of degree /r + I in r, the coefficient of whose

highesipower in xism,l(k + l),while h and At,t^re constants with
l''o : 1'
The r"rrrlt, of Poincard and Horn have been extended to various other types
of differential equations and generalized by inclusion of the cases where

the roots of the characteristic equation are not necessarily distinct'
The existence, form, and ringe of the asymptotic series solution when
the independent variable in (18) is allowed to take on complex values
was
David
first taken up by Horn.2a A general result was given by George
Birkhoff ( I BB4-1944), one of ti-,e first great American mathematicians'2s
23. Acta Math.,24, 1901, 289-308.
24. Math. Ann.,50, 1898, 525-56.
25. Amer. Math. Soc. Trans., lO, 1909, 436-70 : Coll Math' Papets' l' 2Ol-35'
TIiB FORMAL TITEORY OF ASYMPTOTIC SERIES r Io7
Birkhoff in this paper did not consider equation (lB) but the more general
system
IL
(re) #:>a,,(x)s1, i:1,2,...,n,

1=r
in which for lxl > rR we have for each au
as1@) - autcc + al|xc-L +...+a\!t+ a1o,rt'tl- *...

and for which the characteristic equation in cY
la11 - 6srl.l :0
has distinct roots. F{e gave asymptotic series solutions for the y, which hold
in various sectors ofthe complex plane with vertices at x : 0'
Whereas Poincar€'s and the other expansions above are in powers of
the independent variable, further work on asymPtotic series solutions of
differentll equations turned to the problem first considered by Liouville
(sec. 2) wherein a parameter is involved. A general result on this problem
was given by Birkhoff.26 He considered
d"z , . d"-rz p)z:0

(20) ij + ro^-,(*, d\F; + "'+ p"ao(x,
for large lpl and for r in the interval [a, ]]' The functions a1(x, p) are supposed
analytic in the complex parameter p at- p : oo and have derivatives of all
ordeis in the real variable 'r. The assumptions on a1(x, p) imply that
ar(x, P) :2ourrro-'
l=o
and that the roots of wr(x), wz(x), ..., unlc) of the characteristic equation
u" + an-t,o(x)un-r + "'* as.(x) : o
are distinct lor each x. He proves that there are z independent solutions
zr(x, P),' ' ', zo@, P)
of (20) that are analytic in p in a region S ofthe p plane (determined by the

argument olp), such that for any integer rn and large lpl
(21) z,(x, p) : u1(x, p) i.-, [rl, w,(l dt]Eop-^,

26. Amer. Math. Soc. Tran^r.,9,1908, 219-31 and 380-82 = Coll' Math' Poperc, l, l-36'
r roB
where
(22) ut{, p) :..0

[rl, .,(t) d,2ou,,(*)r-'7
and .Eo is a function of r, p, and zr bounded for all r in la, bl and p in S'
The z,r(.r) are themselves determinable. The result (21 ) , in view of (22),
states that zi is given by a series in l/p up to llp^-L plus a remainder term,
namely, the second term on the right, which contains l/p'. Moreover, since
z is arbitrary, one can take as many terms in l/p as one pleases into the
e:<pression for q(x, p). Since Eo is bounded, the remainder term is of higher
order in l/p than ur(x, p).Then the infinite series, which one can obtain
by letting zr become'infinite' is asympto tic to z1(x, p)/exp [p Ji u,(t) dt] in
Poincar6's sense.
In Birkhoff's theorem the asymptotic series for complex p is valid only
in a sector S of the complex p plane. The Stokes phenomenon enters' That
is, the analytic continuation of z1(x, p) across a Stokes line is not given by
the analytic continuation of the asymptotic series for z/x, p).
The use of asymptotic series or of the WKBJ approximation to solutions
of differential equations has raised another problem. Suppose we consider
the equation
(23) Y' * Asq(x)g: O
where r ranges over [a, D]. The WKBJ approximation for large ), in view
of (7), gives two solutions for x > 0 and two fior x < 0' It breaks down at
the value ofx where 4 : 0. Such a point is called a transition point, turning
point, or Stokes point. The exact solutions ol (23) are, however, finite at
such a point. The problem is to relate the WKBJ solutions on each side ol
the transition point so that they represent the same exact solution over the
interval la, bl in which the differential equation is being solved' To put
the problem more specifically, consider the above equation in which q(r)
is real for real x and such that q(*) : 0, q'(x) * 0 for r : 0' suppose also
that q(x) is negative for x positive (or the reverse). Given a linear combination
of the two WKBJ solutions for * < 0 and another for .r > 0, the question
arises as to which ofthe solutions holding for x > 0 should be joined to that
for .r < 0. Connection formulas provide the answer.
27
The scheme for crossing a zero of 4('r) was first given by Lord Rayleigh
and extended by Richard Gans (lBB0-1954),28 who was familiar with
Rayleigh's work. Both ol these men were working on the propagation of
light in a varying medium.
27. Proc. Roy. Soc., A 86, 1912, 207-26 : Sci. Papcrs,6, 7l-90'
28. Annalen der Phys., (4), 47, 1915, 709-36.
SUMMABILITY r r09
The first systematic treatment of connection formulas was given by

Harold Jeffreys 2e independently of Gans's work. Jeffreys considered the
equation
(24)
ffi + \'x(x)s :0,
where ris real, I is large and real, and X(x) has a simple zero a\ say,
r : 0. He derived formulas connecting the asymptotic series solutions of
(24) for ,r > 0 and .t < 0 by using an approximating equation fot (24),
namely,
(25) fldx' a 72au: O
which replaces X(x) in Q\ by a linear function in r' The solutions of (25) are
(26) Yr(x) : xrt2Jrtrc(t)
where ( : (213)\xsr2. The asymptotic expansions for large r of these solu-
tions can be used to join the asymptotic solutions of (24) on each side of
l : 0. There are many details on the ranges of x and that must be con-
sidered in the joining process but we shall not enter into^ them. Extension of
the work on connection formulas for the cases where X(x) in (24) has
multiple zeros or several distinct zeros and for more complicated second
order and higher-order equations and for complex x and ,\ has appeared in
numerous paPers.
The theory of asymPtotic series, whether used for the evaluation of
integrals or the approximate solution of differential equations, has been
extended vastly in recent years. What is especially worth noting is that the
mathematical development shows that the eighteenth- and nineteenth-
century men, notably Euler, who perceived the great utility of divergent
series and maintained that these series could be used as analytical equivalents
of the functions they represented, that is, that operations on the series
corresponded to operations on the functions, were on the right track. Even
though these men failed to isolate the essential rigorous notion, they saw
intuitively and on the basis of results that divergent series were intimately
related to the functions they represented.
4. Summability
The work on divergent series described thus far has dealt with finding
asymptotic series to represent functions either known explicitly or existing
implicitly as solutions of ordinary differential equations. Another problem
that mathematicians tackled from about lBB0 on is essentially the converse
ol finding asymptotic series. Given a series divergent in Cauchy's sense,
29. Proc. Lordon Math. Soc., (2),23, 1922-24,428-36.
DT\IERGENT SERIES
IIIO
can a .,sum" be assigned to the series ? If the series consists of variable
terms this.,sum,, would be a function for which the divergent series might
or might not be an asymptotic expansion. Nevertheless the function might
be tafen to be the " sum " of the series, and this " sum " might serve some
useful purposes' even though the series will certainly not converge to
it
o.rrrryrrotbeusabletocalculateapproximatevaluesofthefunction'
To some extent the problem of summing divergent series was actually
undertakenbeforeCauchyintroducedhisdefinitionsofconvergenceand
divergence.Themathematiciansencountereddivergentseriesandsought
*ro,rt, them much as they did fior convergent series, because the distinction
between the two types was not sharply drawn and the only question was'
What is the appropriate sum ? Thus Euler's principle (Chap' 20, sec' 7) that
a power se.ies e*parrion ofa function has as its sum the value ofthe
function
from which the series is derived gave a sum to the series even for values of
.r for which the series diverges in Cauchy's sense' Likewise, in his transfor-
mation ofseries (Chap. 20, 4), he converted divergent series to convergent
sec.
ones without doubting that there should be a sum for practically
all series'
However,afterCauchydidmakethedistinctionbetweenconvergenceand
divergence, the problem of summing divergent series was broached on a
differint level. The relatively naive assignments in the eighteenth century of
sums to all series were no longer acceptable. The new definitions prescribe
what is now called sammabititg, to distinguish the notion from convergence
in Cauchy's sense.
Wittr hindsight one can see that the notion of summability was really
what the eighte;th- and early nineteenth-century men were advancing'
This is whaiEuler's methods of summing just described amount to' In fact
in his letter to Goldbach of August 7, 1745, in which he asserted that the
sum of a power series is the value of the function from which the series
is
that every series must have a sum, but since the
derived, Euler also asserted
word sum implies the usual process of adding, and this process does not
lead to the sum in the case ofa divergent series such as I - 1! + 2! - 3!
*..., we should use the word value for the "sum" ofa divergent series'
Poisson too introduced what is now recognized to be a summability
notion. Implied in Euler's definition of sum as the value of the function from
which the series comes is the idea that
(27)
fo- : lim S
x-1_ .L
,r=o
a-r".
"
(The notation I - means that * approaches I from below') According to

(27) the sum of I -l+1-l +"'is
I
lim (l -x*x2-
tc-L-
ro +...) : (l + r) -1 2
",fT_
IIII
Poisson 30 was concerned with the series
sin d + sin 2d + sin 3e +-..

which diverges except when 0 is a multiple ol z. His concept, expressed for
the full Fourier series
(28)
?-2 (ancos no * bo sin zd),
is that one should consider the associated power series
(2s)
?. > (an cos n0 + bnsin nl)r"
and define the sum of (28) to be the limit of the series (29) as r approaches
I from below. Of course Poisson did not appreciate that he was suggesting a
definition of a sum of a divergent series because, as already noted, the
distinction between convergence and divergence was in his time not a
critical one.
The definition used by Poisson is now called Abel summability because
it was also suggested by a theorem due to Abel,31 which states that if the
power series
f(*) : S a-.rn
"
" =t,
has a radius of convergence r and converges for *: r, then
(30) lim /(*) :) Ll

anr".
*+t -
a=O
Then the function;f(*) defined by the series in -r < r < r is continuous

on the left at ,c : r. However, if ) an does not converge and the limit (30)
does exist for r : l, then one has a definition of sum for the divergent
series. This formal definition of summability for series divergent in Cauchy's
sense was not introduced until the end ofthe nineteenth century in a connec-
tion soon to be described.
One of the motivations for recorrsidering the summation of divergent
series, beyond their continued usefulness in astronomical work, was what
has been called the boundary-valu e (Grenzwert) problem in the theory of
analytic functions. A power series ) anxn may represent an analytic function
in a circle of radius r but not for values of * on the circle. The problem was
whether one could find a concept of sum such that the power series might
have a sum for lrl : r and such that this sum might even be the value of
30. Jour. dc I'Ecold Poly., 11, 1820, 417-89.
31. Jow.ftr Math., 1,1826, 3ll-39 :
CEwres, l, 219-50.
ttt2
/(x) as l.tl approaches r. It was this attemPt to extend the range of the power
series representation of an analytic function that motivated Frobenius,
H<ilder, and Ernesto Ceslrro. Frobenius 32 showed that if the power series
) arr*" has the interval of convergence - I < r < 1, and if
(31) Sn: do * ar *.. .* a",
then
Jo +sl +...+.t,r
.,iT 2,"*:lT n*l
when the right-hand limit exists. Thus the power series normally divergent
for x : I can have a sum. Moreover ifl(x) is the function represented by
the power series, Frobenius's definitjon of the value of the series at x : I
agrees with lim"-1 - ;f(*).
Divorced from its connection with power series, Frobenius's work
suggested a summability definition for divergent series. If ) a* is divergent
and s,, has the meaning in (31), then one can take as the sum
)o-:,l1is":,1*u*#
if this limit inus for the series I - I + I - I + "', the S, have the
"**o
values l, 112,213,214,315, ll2, 417, l/2,. '. so that limn-- S" : l/2' If
) ao converges, then Frobenius's "sum" gives the usual sum. This idea of
averaging the partial sums of a series can be found in the older literature'
It was used for special types of series by Daniel Bernoulli3s and Joseph L'
Raabe (t B0l -59).34
Shortly after Frobenius published his paper, H<ilder3s produced a
generalization. Given the series ) 4,,, let
slo) : s,
,l', : # (s[o> a 5!or +...+ r[o))
s? : n+(r6') + ,!', +. . .+ sfl)
I
"rrl
:
, *1 (sf;-t) + rf -') +...
i/(9-1) +.r(r-1) * "' +* ra
J(t-l))-
)'
32. Jour. far Math., 89, 1880, 26244 : Ges. Abh., 2,8-10.
33. Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop., 16, 1771,7l-90.
34. Jour. fiir Math., 15, 1836, 355-64.
35. Math. Ann.,20, 1882, 535-49.
SUMMABILITY I I 13
Then the sum s is given bY
(32) , : t,j:,f'
if this limit exists for some r. H<ilder's definition is now known as summability
(H,r)-
Hcilder gave an example. Consider the series
I
-O .T: -l + 2x - 3x2 + 4x3 -""
This series diverges when r : l. However fot x : l,
Jo: -lrsr: l,s:: -2, ss :2,s+: -3'" "
Then
s61): -1,.r!1>:0,s!1): -?,r*':0,slu: -!, .'

162): -l'sl2>: -i"t": -3"5" : -*"'": -3#' "'
It is almost apparent that lim,-- s/p\ : -114, and this is the H<ilder sum
(H,2).It is also the value that Euler assigned to the series on the basis of
his principle that the sum is the.value of the function from which the series
is derived.
Another of the now-standard definitions ol summability was grven by
Cesiro, a professor at the University of Naples.36 Let the series be )11s a,
and let.r, b. )i=o a1. Then the Ceslrro sum is
, : ,l'* DF,
'C(t)
(33) rintegral and > 0,
where
l)
r(r + r(r + l)...(r+n-l)
SY):sn + ffn-r + - O sn-z*" '* -
ro
and ----;i"--
Dr,: (r + l)(r + 2)"'(r + z)
nl
The case r: 1 includes Frobenius's definition. Ceshro's definition is now

referred to as summability (C, r). The methods of H<ilder and Ceslro give
the same results. That Hcilder summability implies Ceslrro's was proved by
Konrad Knopp (lBB2-1957) in an unpublished dissertation of 1907; the
converse was proved by Walter Schnee (b. lBB5).37
36. Bull. des Sci. Math., (2), 14, 1890, I l'f-20.
37. Math. Ann.,67,1909' I 10-25.
II14
An interesting feature of some of the definitions ol summability when
applied to power series with radius of convergence I is that they not only
give a sum that agrees with lim"-1- J@), where.f (r) is the function whose
power series representation is involved, but have the further property that
they preserve a meaning in regions where lxl > I and in these regions
furnish the analytic continuation of the original power series.
Further progress in finding a "sum" for divergent series received its
motivation from a totally different direction, the work of Stieltjes on con-
tinued fractions. The fact that continued lractions can be converted into
divergent or convergent series and conversely was utilized by Euler.38 Euler
sought (Chap. 20, secs.4 and 6) a sum lor the divergent series
(34) l-21 +31 -41 +5! -'...
In his article on divergent seriesse and in correspondence with Nicholas
Bernoulli (1687-1759),4o Euler first proved that
(3s) x - (lt)x2 + (2!)*3 - (3!)r4 +. . .
formally satisfies the differential equation
r'fl+v:,,
for which he obtained the integral solution
f- xe-t
(36) s: Jo T1;tdt.
Then by using rules he derived for converting convergent series into con-
tinued fractions Euler translormed (35) into
(37)
t( x x 2x 2x 3x 3x
ITTT TTITiTiT I+
This work contains two features. On the one hand, Euler obtained an
integral that can be taken to be the "sum" of the divergent scries (35) ;
the latter is in fact asymptotic to the integral. On the other hand he showed
how to convert divergent series into continued fractions. In fact he used the
continued fraction for x : I to calculate a value lor the series (34).
There was incidental work of this nature during the latter part ol the
eighteenth century and a good deal of the nineteenth, of which the most
noteworthy is due to Laguerre.al He proved, first of all, that the integral
38. Noui Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,5, 175415,205-37, pub. 1760 :Opera, (l), 14, 585 617,
and Nooa Acta Acad. Sci. Petrop.,2, 1784,36-45, pub. 1788 : Opera, (l), 16, 34-43.
39. Nooi Comtn. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,5, 175415,205 37, pub. 1760 = Opera, (l), 14, 585 617.
40. Euler's Opera Poslhuma, l, 545 49.
4l- Bull. Soc. Math. de France, T, l8?9, 72-Bl : CEuures, l,428-37.
rr15
(36) could be expanded into the continued fraction (37). He also treated
the divergent series
(38) I + .r + 2l xz + 3!x3 +...
Since
mt : t(m + l) : ,-,2^ d,z,

[*
the series can be written as
Jo
f- ,-.,
f* ,-. d" + * Jo dz * xz f- ,-"", dz * . . ..
Jo
If we formally interchange summation and integration we obtain
Il ,-'r, + xz + x2z2 +..-) dz
or
(3e) f@) : I: e-"7!;dz.

The/(r) thus derived is analytic for all complex x except real and positive
values and can be taken to be the "sum" of the series (38).
In his thesis of 1886 Stieldes took up the study of divergent series.r2
Here Stieldes introduced the very same definition of a series asymPtotic to
a function that Poincar6 had introduced, but otherwise confined himself
to the computational aspects of some special series.
Stieltjes did go on to study continued fraction expansions of divergent
series and wrote two celebrated papers of 1894-95 on this subject.{3 This
work, which is the beginning of an analytic theory of continued fractions,
considered questions of convergence and the connection with definite
integrals and divergent series. It was in these papers that he introduced the
integral bearing his name.
Stieltjes starts with the continued fraction
(40)
lllll I
alz* a2* a|z+ aa+ asz+ a2n* a2nq lzj
where the ao are positive real numbers and z is complex. He then shows
that when the series Zf,=, ao diverges, the continued fraction (40) converges
42, " Recherches sur quelques sdries semi-convergentes," Ann. de l'Ecolc Norn. Sup.' l3),
3, 1886, 201-58 : CEwres complites,2,2 58.
43. Ann. Fac. Sci. de Toulouse, S, 1894, J. l-122, and 9, 1895, A. l-47 : CEuures amPlltes,
2,402-5s9.
IIT6 DfVERGENT SERIES
to a function F(z) which is analytic in the complex Plane except along the
negative real axis and at the origin, and
(41)
When ) a,n converges, the even and odd partial sums of (40) converge to
distinct limits tr'r(z) and F2(z) where
Fr(z):l:ffi, Fr(z):l:*
Now it was known that the continued fraction (.10) could be formally
developed into a series
(42)
CO C',C' C3,
zz2'z?24'
with positive C,. The correspondence (with some restrictions) is also recip-
rocal. To every series (42) there corresponds a continued fraction (40)
with positive an. Stieltjes showed how to determine the C, from the an and
in the case where ) an is divergent he showed that the ratio Cn/Cn-1 increases.
If it has a finite limit ,\, the series converges for lzl > l, but if the ratio
increases without limit then the series diverges for all z,
The relation between the series (42) and the continued fraction (40)
is more detailed. Although the continued fraction converges if the series
does, the converse is not true. When the series (42) diverges one must
distinguish two cases, according as ) an is divergent or convergent. In the
former case, as we have noted, the continued fraction gives one and only
one functional equivalent, which can be taken to be the sum ofthe divergent
series (42). When ) a,, is convergent two different functions are obtained
from the continued fraction, one from the even convergents and the other
from the odd convergents. But to the series (42) (now divergent) there
corresponds an infinite number of functions each of which has the series as
its asymptotic development.
Stieltjes's results have also this significance: they indicate a division
of divergent series into at least two classes, those series for which there is
properly a single functional equivalent whose expansion is the series and
those for which there are at least two functional equivalents whose expansions
are the series. The continued fraction is only the intermediary between
the series and the integral; that is, given the series one obtains the integral
through the continued fraction. Thus, a divergent series belongs to one or
more functions, which functions can be taken to be the ium of the series
in a new sense of sum.
Stieldes also posed and solved an inverse problem. To simplify the
SUMMABILITY ttrT
statement a bit, let us suppose that $(u) is differentiable so that the integral
(41) can be written as
l' .fQ) d,.

Jo z + u
To the divergent series (42) and, in the case where ) a, is divergent there
corresponds an integral of this form. The problem is, given the series to
find f (u). A formal expansion of the integral shows that
(43) c^ : [' 1u1u" au, n : O, 1,2,. ...
Hence knowing the C, one must determine .rf(z) satisfying the infinite set
of equations (43). This is what Stieldes called the " problem of moments."
It does not admit a unique solution, lor Stieltjes himself gave a function
f (u) : e- {n sin {i
which makes C, : 0 for all n. lf the supplementary condition is imposed
that f(u) shall be positive between the limits of integration, then only a
singlel'(a) is possible.
The systematic development of the theory of summable series begins
with the work ofBorel from lB95 on. He first gave definitions that generalize
Cesiro's. Then, taking off from Stieltjes's work, he gave an integral defini-
tion.aa If the process used by Laguerre is applied to any series of the form
(44) ao + ag * arx2 1-. -
having a finite radius ofconvergence (including 0), we are led to the integral
(4s)
where
r, - "F (zx) dz
F(u) : 1 + ap + fi.u" +.. + #.un * -...

This integral is the expression on which Borel built his theory of divergent
series. It was taken by Borel to be the sum of the series (44). The series
F(z) is called the associated series of the original series.
If the original series (44) has a radius of convergence R greater than 0,
the associated series represents an entire function. Then the integral
[i e-"F(zx) dzhas a sense if* lies within the circle of convergence, and the
values of the integral and series are identical. But the integral may have a
sense for values of x outside the circle of convergence, and in this case the
44. Ann. de I'Ecole Norm. Sup., (3), 16, 1899, 9-136.

II I8 DIVERGENT SERIES
integral furnishes an analytic continuation of the original series. The series

is said by Borel to be summable (in the sense just explained) at a point *
where the integral has a meaning.
If the original series (44) is divergent (n : 0), the associated series
may be convergent or divergent. If it is convergent over only a portion
of the plane u : zx we understand by F(z) the value not merely of the
associated series but of its analytic continuation' Then the integral
e-"F(zx) dz rnay have a meaning and is, as we see, obtained lrom the
li-original
divergent series. The determination of the region ol .x-values in
which the original series is summable was undertaken by Borel, both when
the original series is convergent (n > 0) and divergent (n : 0)'
Borel also introduced the notion of absolute summability. The original
series is absolutely summable at a value of .r when
e-'F(zx) dz
)o
is absolutely convergent and the successive integrals
J"' -l a2 a", ^ :
'lu^F,(?| 1, 2, "'
|
have a sense. Borel then shows that a divergent series, ifabsolutely summable,
can be manipulated precisely as a convergent series' The series, in other
words, represents a function and can be manipulated in place ofthe function.
Thus the sum, difference, and product of two absolutely summable series
is absolutely summable and represents the sum, difference, and product
respectively of the two functions represented by the separate series. The
analogous llact holds for the derivative of an absolutely summable series.
Moreover the sum in the above sense agrees with the usual sum in the case
of a convergent series, and subtraction of the first,t terms reduces the "sum"
ol the entire series by the sum of these ,t terms' Borel emphasized that any
satisfactory definition of summability must Possess these properties, though
not all do. He did not require that any two definitions necessarily yield the
same sum.
These properties made possible the immediate application of Borel's
theory to diflerential equations. If, in fact,
P(*,Y'Y'," ',gott) : o
is a diflerential equation which is holomorphic in x at the origin and is
algebraic in y and its derivatives, any absolutely summable series
ds*d.1ltIarx2+--.
which satisfies the differential equation formally defines an analytic function
that is a solution of the equation. For example, the Laguerre series
I + , + 2l x2 + 3!xs + .. .
rrrg
satisfies formally
,,*^+(x-l)u:-1.
and so the function (cf. (39))
J@) : f- e-z dz
)o 7-=-u
must be a solution of the equation.
Once the notion of summability gained some acceptance, dozens of
mathematicians introduced a variety of new definitions that met some or
all of the requirements imposed by Borel and others. Many of the definitions
of summability have been extended to double series. Also, a variety of
problems has been formulated and many solved that involve the notion of
summability. For example, suppose a series is summable by some method'
What additional conditions can be imposed on the series so that, granted
its summability, it will also be convergent in Cauchy's sense ? Such theorems
are called Tauberian after Alfred Tauber (b. 1866). Thus Tauber proveda6
that if ) a" is Abelian summable to s and nan approaches 0 as z becomes
infinite, then ) a,, converges to J,
The concept of summability does then allow us to give a value or sum
to a great variety of divergent series. The question of what is accomplished
thereby necessarily arises. If a given infinite series were to arise directly
in a physical situation, the appropriateness of any definition of sum would
depend entirely on whether the sum is physically significant, just as the
physical utility of any geometry depends on whether the geometry describes
physical space. Cauchy's definition ofsum is the one that usually fits because
it says basically that the sum is what one gets by continually adding more
and more terms in the ordinary sense. But there is no Iogical reason to
prefer this concept ofsum to the others that have been introduced. Indeed
the representation of functions by series is greatly extended by employing
the newer concepts. Thus Leopold Fej€r (1880-1959), a student of H. A'
Schwarz, showed the value of summability in the theory of Fourier series.
In I904a6 Fej6r proved that if in the interval [-4 r), f(x) is bounded and
(Riemann) integrable, or if unbounded the integral I!,-f@ dr is absolutely
convergent, then at every point in the interval at which /(r + 0) and
"f(* - O) exist, the Frobenius sum of the Fourier series
4o-.S (ao cos nx + 6n sin z*)
45. Monatshdte fnr Mathrmdtik und Physik, S, 1897, 273-77 .
46. Math. Ann,, 58, 1904, 5l-69.

I I20 DIVERGENT SERIES
is [/(r + 0) + f (x - 0)112. The conditions on ;f(r) in this theorem are

weaker than in previous theorems on the convergence of Fourier series to
JQ) @f. Chap. 40, sec. 6).
Fej6r's fundamental result was the beginning of an extensive series of
fruitful investigations on the summability of series. We have had numerous
occasions to view the need to represent functions by infinite series. Thus in
meeting the initial condition in the solution of initial- and boundary-value
problems of partial differential equations, it is usually necessary to represent
the given initial /(x) in terms of the eigenfunctions that are obtained from
the application of the boundary conditions to the ordinary differential
equations that result from the method of separation of variables. These
eigenfunctions can be Bessel functions, Legendre functions, or any one of a
number of types of special functions. Whereas the convergence in the
Cauchy sense of such a series of eigenfunctions to the given;f(r) may not
obtain, the series may indeed be summable tol(z) in one or another of the
senses of summability and the initial condition is thereby satisfied. These
applications of summability represent a great success for the concept.
The construction and acceptance of the theory of divergent series is
another striking example of the way in which mathematics has grown. It
shows, first of all, that when a concept or technique proves to be useful even
though the logic of it is confused or even nonexistent, persistent research
will uncover a logical justification, which is truly an afterthought. It also
demonstrates how far mathematicians have come to recognize that mathe-
matics is man-made. The definitions of summability are not the natural
notion of continually adding more and more terms, the notion which
Cauchy merely rigorized; they are artificial. But they serve mathematical
purposes, including even the mathematical solution ol physical problems;
and these are now sufficient grounds for admitting them into the domain of
legitimate mathematics.
Bibliograplry
Borel, Emile: Nolice sur les lraoaux scientifques de M. Emile Borel,2nd ed., Gauthier-
Villars,
1921.
Legons sur les siries diuergentes, Gauthier-Villars, 1901.
--2
Burkhardt, H.: " Trigonome trische Reihe und Integrale," Encyk. der Math. Wiss,,
B. G. Teubner, 190.t-16, II Al2,819 1354.
"Uber den Gebrauch divergenter Reihen in der Zeit von 1750-1860,"
Math. Ann.,70, 19l l, 169-206.
Carmichael, Robert D.: " General Aspects of the Theory of Summable Series,"
Amer. Math. Soc. Bull.,25, l9l8/19, 97-131.
Collingwood E. F.: "Emile Borel," Jour. Lon. l[ath. Soc,,34, 1959, 488 512.
Ford, W. B.: "A Conspectus of the Modern Theories of Divergent Series," Amer.
Math. Soc. Bull.,25, l9l8/19, l-15.
BIBLIOGRAPI{Y II2I
Hardy, G. H.: Diuergent Srrias, Oxford University Press, 1949. See the historical
notes at the ends of the chapters.
Hurwitz, W. A.: "A Report on Topics in the Theory of Divergent Series," Amer.
Math. Soc. Bull., 28, 1922, 17 36.
Knopp, K.: " Neuere lJntersuchungen in der Theorie der divergenten Reihen,"
Jahres. der Deut. Math.-Verein., 32, 1923, 43-67 .
Langer, Rudolf E. : " The Asymptotic Solution of Ordinary Linear Differential
Equations of the Second Order," Amer. Math. Soc. Bull., 40, 193+, 545-82.
McHugh, J. A. M.: "An Historical Survey of Ordinary Linear Differential
Equations with a Large Parameter and Turning Points," Archiae for History
oJ Exact Sciences, T, 1971,277-324.
Moore, C. N.: "Applications of the Theory of Summability to Developments in
Orthogonal Functions," Amer. Math. Soc. Bull.,25, l9l8/19,258-76.
Plancherel, N{ichel: "Le DCveloppement de la thdorie des sCries trigonomCtriques
dans le dernier quart de sitcle," L'Enseignement Mathdmatiqut, 24, 1924125,
l9-58.
Pringsheim, A.: " Irrationalzahlen und Konvergenz unendlicher Prozesse," Encyk.
der Math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner, 1898-1904, IA3, 47-146.
Reiff, R.: Geschichte der unendlhhen Reihen, H, Lauppsche Buchhandlung, 1889,
Martin Sandig (reprint), 1969.
Smail, L. L.: History and Sgnopsis of the Theory of Summable Inf,nite Processes, University
of Oregon Press, 1925.
Van Vleck, E. B.: " Selected Topics in the Theory of Divergent Series and Con-
tinued Fractions," The Boston Colloquium of the Amer. Math. Soc., 1903,
Macmillan, 1905, 75-187.
48
Tensor Analysis and Differential
Geometry
Either therefore the reality which underlies space must form

a discrete manifold or we must seek the ground of its metric
in relations outside it, in the binding forces which act on it.
This leads us into the domain of another science, that of
physics, into which the object of our work does not allow us
to go today. BERNHARD RTEMANN
l. Tlu Oigins oJ Tensor Analgsis

Tensor analysis is often described as a totally new branch of mathematics,
created ab initio either to meet some specific objective or just to delight
mathematicians. It is actually no more than a variation on an old theme,
namely, the study of differential invariants associated primarily with a
Riemannian geometry. These invariants, we may recall (Chap. 37, sec. 5),
are expressions that retain their form and value under any change in the
coordinate system because they represent geometrical or physical properties'
The study of differential invariants had been launched by Riemann,
Beltrami, Christoffel, and Lipschitz. The new approach was initiated by
Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro (1853-1925), a prolessor ol mathematics at the
University of Palermo. He was influenced by Luigi Bianchi, whose work
had followed Christoffel's. Ricci sought to exPedite the search for geomet-
rical properties and the expression ofphysical laws in a form invariant under
change of coordinates. He did his major work on the subject during the years
IB8T-96, though he and an Italian school continued to work on it for twenty
or more years after 1896. In the main period Ricci worked out his approach
and a comprehensive notation for the subject, which he called the absolute
differential calculus. In an article published in 18921 Ricci gave the first
systematic account of his method and applied it to some problems in differen-
tial geometry and physics.
l. Bull. des Sci. Math., (2), 16, 1892, 167-89 : Open, 1,288-310.
tr22
THE NOTION OF A TENSOR r r23
Nine years later Ricci and his famous pupil Tullio Levi-Civita (1873-
l94l ) collaborated on a comprehensive paper, " Methods of the Absolute
Differential Calculus and Their Applications." 2 The work of Ricci and
Levi-Civita gave a more definitive formulation of this calculus. The subject
became known as tensor analysis after Einstein gave it this name in 1916.
In view of the many changes in notation made by Ricci and later by Levi-
Civita and Ricci, we shall use the notation which has by now become rather
standard.
2. The Notion of a Tensor

To get at the notion of a tensor as introduced b), Ricci, let us consider the
function A(xL, x2, . . ., x").By A, we shall mean 7Al?xt. Then the expression
(r) f e,a*'
is a diflerential invariant under transformations ofl the form
(2) x' : -f,(Yr,Y',...'!").
It is assumed that the functions.fl possess all necessary derivatives and that
the transformation is reversible, so that
(3) yt : gi(x', x2, . . ., x").
Under the transfiormation (2) the expression (l) becomes
(+) 5
L
A,(r',y',...,!")dvi.
However, ,4-, does not equal lr. Rather
.. : aA ?xt ox2+...+ AnW
o a*n
(5) o,
A!,- a,W * ^rW
wherein it is understood that the riin the l, are replaced by their values in
terms of the yi. Thus the A, can be related to the /4i by the specific law of
translormation (5) wherein the first derivatives of the translormation are
involved.
Ricci's idea was that instead of concentrating on the invariant differen-
tial form ( I ), it would be sufficient and more expeditious to treat the set
Ab A2r' ' ', An
and to call this set of components a tensor provided that, under a change of
coordinates, the new set of components
Ab 42,' ' ', An
2. Math. Ann., 54, 1901, 125-201 : Ricci, O?ere, 2, 185-271.

tt24 TENSOR ANALYSIS AND DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY
are related to the original set by the law of transformation (5). It is this
explicit emphasis on the set or system of functions and the law of trans-
formation that marks Ricci's approach to the subject of differential invari-
ants. The set of 17, which happen to be the components of the gradient of
the scalar function l, is an example ofa covariant tensor of rank 1. The
notion of a set or system of functions characterizing an invariant quantity
was in itself not new because vectors were already well known in Ricci's
time; these are represented by their comPonents in a coordinate system and
are also subject to a law of transformation if the vector is to remain, as it
should be, invariant under a change of coordinates. However, the new
systems that Ricci introduced were far more general and the emphasis on
the law of transformation was also new.
As another example of the point of view introduced by Ricci, let us
consider the expression for the element of distance. This is given by
(6) d,':; sudv.

t,t =r
Under change of coordinates the value of the distance /s must remain the
same on geometrical grounds. However, if we perform the transformation
(2) and write the new expression in the form
-a
: Z
(7) d" G,,dYt ds',
then . . . , x") will not equal G,,(g', . .. , y') (when the values
gi(*r, of the yt
represent the same point as the.rtdo). What does hold is that
(8)
"': ,2,*# *u"
when the xr in the g,, are replaced by their values in terms of the yr. To see
that (8) holds we have but to replace dxr in (6) by
a*,:* 4a,*-
?roY-
and. N in (6) by
a*, :* 4a,,
?-,0s"
and extract the coefficient of dyh dgt. Thus, though Gn, is not at all g*r, we
do know how to obtain Gu, from the gr,. The set of z2 coefficients g,, of the
THE NOTION OF A TENSOR r r25
fundamental quadratic form are a tensor, a covariant tensor of rank 2, and

the law of transformation is that given by (8).
Ricci also introduced contravariant tensors. Let us consider the inverse
of the transformation hitherto considered. If this inverse is
(s) y' : g/x', x2,' ' ., x"),
then
(10) d{:> ^4.. a*r.

dx^
Ifwe now regard the tlxk as a set of quantities constituting a tensor, then we
see that, of course, dyi A dx!, but we can obtain the dy' from the d,t' by the
law of transformation illustrated in (10). The set of elements dxk is called a
contravariant tensor of rank l, the term contravariant pointing to the
presence of the 1yt lLxk in the transformation, as opposed to the derivatives
AxtlOgr which appear in (8) and (5)' Thus the very differentials of the
transformation variables form a contravariant tensor of rank l.
Correspondingly, we can have a tensor ofrank 2 that transforms contra-
variantly in both indices. If the setof functions Akt(xr, x2,..., x"), k, l:
1,2,. . .,n, transform under (9) so that
* og'alt *,
(l l) "zrn-
- .L oxk oxt" '
then this set is a contravariant tensor of rank 2. Moreover, we can have

what are called mixed tensors, which transform covariantly in some indices
and contravariantly in others. For example, the set A!,, i,i, k : 1,2, ' ' ', n,
denotes a mixed tensor wherein, following Ricci, the lower indices are the
ones in which it transforms covariantly and the upper index is the one in
which it transforms contravariantly. The tensor whose elements are lf, is
called a tensor of rank 3. We can have covariant, contravariant, and mixed
tensors of rank r. An z-dimensional tensor olrank r will have 2'components'
Equation (21 ) in Chapter 37 shows that Riemann's four-index symbol (rk, ih)
is a covariant tensor ofrank 4. A covariant tensor ofrank I is a vector' To it
Levi-Civita associated the contravariant vector which is defined as follows:
If the set ol ,\, are the components of a covariant vector, then the set
^,
: i s,"^"
is the associated contravariant vector; gik is a quotient whose numerator is

the cofactor of g" in the determinant of the gr" and whose denominator is g,
the value of the determinant.
I I26 TENSOR ANALYSIS AND DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY
There are operations on tensors. Thus il we have two tensors of the

same kind, that is, having the same number of covariant and the same
number of contravariant indices, we may add them by adding the com-
ponents with the identical indices. Thus
A1+ 81: cl.

One must and can show that the C{ constitute a tensor covariant in the
index i and contravariant in the indexj.
One may multiply any two tensors whose indices run from I to z. An
example may suffice to show the idea. Thus
ArBr : cri"
and one can show that the tensor with the na components Clf is covariant
in the lower indices and contravariant in the upper ones. There is no opera-
tion of division of tensors.
The operation of contraction is illustrated by the following example :
Given the tensor lf,', we define the quantity
ar:)er:,
wherein on the right side we add the components. We could show that the
set of quantities.Bf is a tensor ofrank 2, covariant in the index i and contra-
variant in the index i.
To sum up, a tensor is a set of functions (components), fixed relative
to one frame of reference or coordinate system, that transform under change
of coordinates in accordance with certain laws. Each component in one
coordinate system is a linear homogeneous function of the components in
another coordinate system. If the components of one tensor equal those of
another when both are expressed in one coordinate system, they will be equal
in all coordinate systems. In particular, if the components vanish in one
system they vanish in all. Equality oftensors is then an invariant with respect
to change of reference system. The physical, geometrical, or even purely
mathematical significance which a tensor possesses in one coordinate system
is preserved by the transformation so that it obtains again in the second
coordinate system. This property is vital in the theory of relativity, wherein
each observer has his own coordinate system. Since the true physical
laws are those that hold for all observers, to reflect this independence of
coordinate system these laws are expressed as tensors.
With the tensor concept in hand, one can re-express many of the
concepts ol Riemannian geometry in tensor form. Perhaps the most im-
portant is the curvature of the space. Riemann's concept of curvature
(Chap. 37, sec. 3) can be formulated as a tensor in many ways. The modern
COVARIANT DIFFERENTIATION tt27
expressions use the summation convention introduced by Einstein, namely,

that if an index is repeated in a product of two symbols, then summation is
understood. Thus
s,t;,:) s,'tt.
l=r
In this notation the curvature tensor is (cf. [20] of Chap. 37)
Rxuoo : 2A Al - d-, [pp,

,\] + {v.p, e}f\o, "f - {po, e}[]p, el
hlu",
or equivalently
a _.. .. a
: huk,;\
Ri" - fi{it,;\ - f{sk, i}$t, s} - {s/, i}{"7*, s}l
wherein the brackets denote Christoffel symbols of the first kind and the
braces, symbols of the second kind. Either form is now called the Riemann-
Christoffel curvature tensor. By reason of certain relationships (which we
shall not describe) among the components, the number of distinct com-
ponents of this tensor is n2 (n2 - l)/12. For n : 4, which is the case in the
general theory of relativity, the number of distinct components is 20. In a
two-dimensional Riemannian space there is just one distinct component'
which can be taken to be rRlrrr. In this case Gauss's total curvature ( proves
to be
x : !,,*,
e
where g is the determinant of the gi1 or €rgzz - g!2. If all comPonents
vanish the space is Euclidean.
From the Riemann-Christoffel tensor Ricci obtained by contraction
what is now called the Ricci tensor or the Einstein tensor. The comPonents
R,, are )!=1Rhk. This tensor for n : 4 was used by Einsteins to express the
curvature of his space-time Riemannian geometry.
3. Coaariant Dffirentiation
Ricci also introduced into tensor analysisa an operation that he and Levi-
Civita later called covariant diflerentiation. This operation had already
appeared in Christoffel's and Lipschitz's work.s Christoffel had given a
method (Chap. 37, sec. 4) whereby from differential invariants involving
3. Zeit. ffir Math. und Phys.,62, l9l4' 225-61.
4. Atti. della Accad. dei Lincei, Rendiconti, (4), 3, 1887, 15-18 : O\ere, l, 199-203.
5. Jour. filr Math.,70, 1869, 46-70 and 24145, and 7l-102.
/ (xy x2, . . ., xn)

the derivatives ofthe fundamental form for /s2 and offunctions
one could derive invariants involving higher derivatives. Ricci appreciated
the importance of this method for his tensor analysis and adopted it.
Whereas Christoffel and Lipschitz treated covariant differentiation ol
the entire form, Ricci, in accordance with his emphasis on the components
of a tensor, worked with these. Thus if .4r(*1, x2, . . . , x") is a covariant com-
ponent of a vector or tensor of rank l, the covariant derivative of ,4i is not
simply the derivative with respect to xr, but the tensor of second rank
(12) e,.,:# -)w,itn,,

l=t
where the braces indicate the Christoffel symbol of the second kind. Likewise,
if At* is a component of a covariant tensor of rank 2, then its covariant
derivative with respect to *l is given by
(t3) t,*,,:'# - )w,itnu -){r,,t}n,.

l=r i=r
For a contravariant tensor with components ll ofrank I the covariant
derivative /, is given by
A:,:#+)e,st,;1,
t=1
and this is a mixed tensor of the second order. For the mixed tensor with
components A! the avariant derivative is
A?.,:# - 2o,;tr,il +)e117,4.

l=7 l=r
The covariant derivative ofa scalar invariant { is the covariant vector whose
components are given by i,, : 0$l0xr. This vector is called the gradient of
the scalar invariant.
From the purely mathematical standpoint, the covariant derivative of
a tensor is a tensor of one rank higher in the covariant indices. This fact is
important because it enables one to treat such derivatives within the frame-
work of tensor analysis. It also has geometrical meaning. Suppose we have a
constant vector field in the plane, that is, a set of vectors one at each point
but all having the same magnitude and direction. Then the components of
any vector, expressed with respect to a rectangular coordinate system, are
also constant. However, the components of these vectors with respect to the
polar coordinate system, one component along the radius vector and the
other perpendicular to the radius vector, change from point to point, because
the directions in which the compon'ents are taken change from point to point.
COVARIANT DIFFERENTIATION
r r29
Il one takes the derivatives with respect to the coordinates, r and 0 say, of
these components, then the rate of change expressed by these derivatives
reflects the change in the components caused by the coordinate system and
not by any change in the vectors themselves. The coordinate systems used in
Riemannian geometry are curvilinear. The effect ol the curvilinearity of the
coordinates is given by the Christoffel symbol of the second kind (here
denoted by braces). The full covariant derivative ofa tensor gives the actual
rate ofchange ofthe underlying physical or geometrical quantity represented
by the original tensor as well as the change due to the underlying coordinate
system.
In Euclidean sPaces, where the ds2 can always be reduced to a sum of
squares with constant coefficients, the covariant derivative reduces to the
o.dirr".y derivative because the christoffel symbols are 0. Also the covariant
derivative ol each g,, in a Riemannian metric is 0. This last fact was proved
by Ricci 6 and is called Ricci's lemma.
The concept of covariant differentiation enables us to exPress readily for
tensors generalizations of notions already known in vector analysis but now
treatabl-e in Riemannian geometry. Thus il the Ar(xr, tc2 , ' ' ' ', x") are the
components of an z-dimensional vector ,4, then
fl
(14) o : ) e"Att,
where gtl has been defined above, is a differential invariant' When the
fundamlntal metric is a rectangular Cartesian coordinate system (in
Euclidean space), the constants grl : 0 except when i : /' and in this case
thecovariantandordinaryderivativesareidentical.Then(14)becomes
0:>#,
and this is the z-dimensional analogue in Euclidean space of what is called
the divergence in three dimensions. Hence (14) is also called the divergence
of the ten;or with components 1,. One can also show, by using (14), that if
A is a scalar point function then the divergence of the gradient of u4 is
given by
n r- I S 2
oxl di
( 15) "2,, - ,2 z< A\,
where
* az
AI: ,L 6,,, ?xt S ,,,2.
- L" "'',
6. Atti delta Accad. dei Linczi, Rendiconti' (4),5' 1889, I 12-18 : OPerc, 1,268_75-
r r3() TENSOR ANALYSIS AND DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY
This expression for Arl is also Beltrami's expression for L2A in a Riemannian
geometry (Chap. 37, sec.5).
Though Ricci and Levi-Civita devoted much of their l90l paper to
developing the technique of tensor analysis, they were primarily concerned
to find differential invariants. They posed the following general problem:
Given a positive differential quadratic form / and an arbitrary number of
associated functions S, to determine all the absolute differential invariants
that one can form from the coefficients of{, the functions S, and the deriva-
tives of the coefficients and functions up to a definite order zz. They gave a
complete solution. It is sufficient to find the algebraic invariants of the system
consisting of the fundamental differential quadratic form {, the covariant
derivatives of any associated functions S up to order m, and, for m > l, a
certain quadrilinear form Gn whose coemcients are the Riemann expressions
(ih,jk) and its covariant derivatives up to order m - 2.
They conclude their paper by showing how some partial differential
equations and physical laws can be expressed in tensor lorm so as to render
them independent of the coordinate system. This was Ricci's avowed goal.
Thus tensor analysis was used to express the mathematical invariance of
physical laws many years before Einstein used it for this purpose.
4. Parallel Displanment
From l90l to 1915, research on tensor analysis was limited to a very small
group of mathematicians. However, Einstein's work changed the picture.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955), while engaged as an engineer in the Swiss
patent office, greatly stirred the scientific world by the announcement of his
restricted or special theory of relativity.T In l9l4 Einstein accepted a call to
the Prussian Academy of Science in Berlin, as successor to the celebrated
physical chemist Jacobus Van't Hoff (1852-l9l l). Two years later he
announced his general theory of relativity.s
Einstein's revolutionary views on the relativity of physical phenomena
aroused intense interest among physicists, philosophers, and mathematicians
throughout the world. Mathematicians especially were excited by the nature
of the geometry Einstein found it expedient to use in the creation of his
theories.
The exposition of the restricted theory, involving the properties offour-
dimensional pseudo-Euclidean manifolds (space-time), is best made with the
aid ofvectors and tensors, but the exposition ofthe general theory, involving
properties of four-dimensional Riemannian manifolds (space-time), demands
the use of the special calculus of tensors associated with such manifolds.
7. Annalen der Phys., 17, 1905, 891-921; an English translation can be found in the Dover
edition ofA. Einstein, The Priwiple of Relatiaily (1951).
8, Atnahn der Plgsik,49, 1916, 769-822.
PARALLEL DISPLACEMENT r r3r
Fortunately, the calculus had already been developed but had not as yet
attracted particular notice from physicists'
Actually Einstein's work on the restricted theory did not use Riemannian
geometry or tensor analysis's But the restricted theory did not involve the
action of gravitation. Einstein then began to work on the problem of dis-
pensing with the force ofgravitation and accounting for its effect by imposing
a strrrciu.e on his space-time geometry so that objects would automatically
move along the same paths as those derived by assuming the action of the
gravitational force. In l9l I he made public a theory that accounted in this
for a gravitational lorce that had a constant direction throughout
û.r.r..
space, knowing of course that this theory was unrealistic. Up to this time
Einstein had used only the simplest mathematical tools and had even been
suspicious of the need for " higher mathematics," which he thought was
often introduced to dumbfound the reader. However, to make Progress on
his problem he discussed it in Prague with a colleague, the mathematician
Georg Pick, who called his attention to the mathematical theory of Ricci and
Levi-Civita. In Zurich Einstein found a friend, Marcel Grossmann ( l87B-
1936), who helped him learn the theory ; and with this as a basis, he succeeded
in formulating the general theory of relativity.
To represent his four-dimensional world of three space coordinates and
a fourth coordinate denoting time, Einstein used the Riemannian metric
( r6) dsr: > g,,dx1 dx;,
wherein .r4 represents time. The gi, were chosen so as to reflect the presence
of matter in various regions. Moreover, since the theory is concerned with
the determination of lengths, time, mass, and other physical quantities by
different observers who are moving in arbitrary fashion with respect to each
other, the "points" of space-time are represented by different coordinate
systems, one attached to each observer. The relation of one coordinate
system to another is given by a transformation
'\: [i(!t!2,"',!+), i : 1,"',4'

The laws of nature are those relationships or expressions that are the same
for all observers. Hence they are invariants in the mathematical sense'
From the standpoint of mathematics, the importance of Einstein's work
was, as already noted, the enlargement of interest in tensor analysis and
Riemannian geometry. The first innovation in tensor analysis following upon
the theory of relativity is due to Levi-Civita' In 1917, improving on an idea
9. The metric is ds2: dxz + dy2 + dzz - c2 tlt2. T}l.is is a space of constant curvaturc'
Any section by a ptane , : const. is Euclidean.
t t32 TENSOR ANALYSIS AND DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY
of Ricci, he introduced 10 the notion of parallel displacement or parallel

transfer of a vector. The idea was also created independently by Gerhard
Hessenberg in the same year.rl In 1906 Brouwer had introduced it for
surfaces of constant curvature. The objective in the notion of parallel
displacement is to define what is meant by parallel vectors in a Riemannian
space. The difficulty in doing so may be seen by considering the surface of a
sphere which, considered as a space in itself and with distance on the surface
given by arcs of great circles, is a Riemannian space. If a vector, say one
starting on a circle oflatitude and pointing north (the vector will be tangent
to the sphere), is moved by having the initial point follow the circle and is
kept parallel to itself in the Euclidean three-space, then when it is halfway
around the circle it is no longer tangent to the sphere and so is not in that
space. To obtain a notion of parallelism of vectors suitable for a Riemannian
space, the Euclidean notion is generalized, but some of the familiar properties
are lost in the process.
The geometrical idea used by Levi-Civita to define parallel transfer or
displacement is readily understood for a surface. Consider a curve C on the
surface, and let a vector with one endpoint on C be moved parallel to itself
in the following sense: At each point of C there is a tangent plane. The
envelope of this family of planes is a developable surface, and when this
surliace is flattened out onto a plane, the vectors parallel along C are truly
parallel in the Euclidean plane.
Levi-Civita generalized this idea to fit z-dimensional Riemannian
spaces. It is true in the Euclidean plane that when a vector is carried parallel
to itself and its initial point follows a straight line-a geodesic in the plane-
the vector always makes the same angle with the line. Accordingly, parallel-
ism in a Riemannian space is defined thus: When a vector in the space moves
so that its initial point follows a geodesic, then the vector must continue to
make the same angle with the geodesic (tangent to the geodesic)' In par-
ticular, a tangent to a geodesic remains parallel to itself as it moves along a
geodesic. By definition the vector continues to have the same magnitude. It is
understood that the vector remains in the Riemannian space, even if that
space is imbedded in a Euclidean space. The definition of parallel transfer
also requires that the angle between two vectors be preserved as each is
moved parallel to itselfalong the same curve C. In the general case ofparallel
transfer around an arbitrary closed curve C, the initial vector and the final
vector will usually not have the same (Euclidean) direction. The deviation
in direction will depend on the path C. Thus consider a vector starting at a
point P on a circle of latitude on a sphere and tangent to the sphere along a
meridian. When carried by parallel transfer arotnd the circle it will end up at
10. Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di. Palermo, 42, l9l7, 173-205.
ll. Math. Ann.,78, 1918, 187-217.
CENERALIZATIONS OF RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY I I33
P tangent to the surface; but if{ is the coJatitude of P, it will make an angle
2r - with the original vector.
2tr cos {
Ifone uses the general definition of parallel displacement along a curve
of a Riemannian space, he obtains an analytic condition. The differential
equation satisfied by the components X@ of a contravariant vector under
parallel transler along a curve is (summation understood)
(17)
# * rUr,4xaff:0, u:1,2,...,n,
wherein it is presupposed that the ut(t), i : 1,2,..., z, define a curve. For
a covariant vector Xo the condition is
( l8)
ff - ra,n*,ff :0, a : 1,2,. . ., n.
These equations can be used to define parallel transfer along any curve C.
The solution determined uniquely by the values of the components at a
definite P is a vector having values at each point of C and by definition
parallel to the initial vector at P. Equation (lB) states that the covariant
derivative ofX, is 0.
Once the notion ofparallel displacement is introduced, one can describe
the curvature of a space in terms of it, specifically in terms of the change in
an infinitesimal vector upon parallel displacement by infinitesimal steps.
Parallelism is at the basis ofthe notion of curvature even in Euclidean space,
because the curvature of an infinitesimal arc depends on the change in
direction of the tangent vector over the arc.
5. Generalizatioru d Riemannian Gelmetr!

The successful use of Riemannian geometry in the theory of relativity revived
interest in that subject. However, Einstein's work raised an even broader
question. He had incorporated the gravitational effect of mass in space by
using the proper functions for the gr. As a consequence the geodesics of his
space-time proved to be precisely the paths of otrjects moving freely as, for
example, the earth does around the sun. Unlike the situation in Newtonian
mechanics, no gravitational force was required to account for the path. The
elimination of gravity suggested another problem, namely, to account for
attraction and repulsion of electric charges in terms ol the metric of space.
Such an accomplishment would supply a unified theory of gravitation and
electromagnetism. This work led to generalizations of Riemannian geometry
known collectively as non-Riemannian geometries.
In Riemannian geometry the /s2 ties together the points of the space.
It specifies how points are related to each other by prescribing the distance
between points. In the non-Riemannian geometries the connection between
points is specified in ways that do not necessarily rely upon a metric. The
variety of these geometries is great, and each has a development as extensive

as Riemannian geometry itself. Hence we shall give only some examples ol
the basic ideas in these geometries.
This area of work was initiated primarily by Hermann Weyl12 and the
class of geometries he introduced is known as the Seometry of afiinely con-
nected spaces. In Riemannian geometry the proof that the covariant deriva-
tive of a tensor is itself a tensor depends only on relations of the form
(le) J*,nl : {,b, i} yy,

#-# . #*'#,
wherein the left side is the transform of {ab,j} under a change ofcoordinates
from the *r to the yr. These relations are satisfied by the Christoffel symbols,
and the symbols themselves are defined in terms of the coefficients of the
fundamental form. Consider instead functions Zjs and L!* of the xt and yi,
respectively, which satisS the same relations (19) but are specified only as
given functions unrelated to the fundarnental quadratic form. A set of func-
ions Llaassociated with a space tr/,, and having the transformation property
(19) is said to constitute an affine connection. The functions are called the
coefficients of affine connection and the space Vn is said to be affinely
connected or to be an affine space. Riemannian geometry is the special case
in which tlte coefficients of affine connection are the Christoffel symbols of
the second kind and are derived from the fundamental tensor of the space.
Given the Lfunctions, concepts such as covariant differentiation, curvature,
and other notions analogous to those in Riemannian geometry can be intro-
duced. However, one cannot speak of the magnitude of a vector in this new
geometry.
In an affinely connected space a curve such that its tangents are parallel
with respect to the curve (in the sense ofparallel displacement for that space)
is called a path of the space. Paths are thus a generalization of the geodesics
of a Riemannian space. All affinely connected sPaces that have the same Z's
have the same paths. Thus the geometry of affinely connected spaces dis-
penses with the Riemannian metric. Weyl did derive Maxwell's equations
from the properties of the space, but the theory as a whole did not accord
with other established facts.
Another non-Riemannian geometry, due to Luther P. Eisenhart (1876-
1965) and Veblen,13 and called the geometry of paths, proceeds somewhat
differently. It starts with z3 given functions fl, of 11, . ' ', *n. The system of
n differential equations
(20)
d'r' - S ,, dx^ dxu : n i: 1,2,. . ., n,
ds2 ' L-n'ds ds
12. Mathematische kitschrift,2, 1918, 38't-41 I : Ges. Abh., 2' l-28:
13, Proccedings of thz National Academy qf Scierucs, 8, 1922, 19-23.
BIBLIOGRAPHY I I35
with li,, : fl,,r, a family of curves called paths. These are the
defines
geodesics of the geometry. (In Riemannian geometry equations (20) are
precisely those for geodesics.) Given the geodesics in the sense just described,
one can build up the geometry of paths in a manner quite analogous to that
pursued in Riemannian geometry.
A different generalization of Riemannian geometry is due to Paul
Finsler (l89,t-) in his (unpublished) thesis of l9l8 at Gdttingen. The
Riemannian d.r2 is replaced by a more general function F (x, dx) of the
coordinates and differentials. There are restrictions on F to insure the
possibility of minimizing the integral J F @, (dxldt)) dt and obtaining thereby
the geodesics.
The attempts to generalize the concept of Riemannian geometry so as to
incorporate electromagnetic as well as gravitational phenomena have thus
far failed. However, mathematicians have continued to work on the abstract
geometries.
Bibliography
Cartan, E.: "Les rdcentes gdndralisations de la notion d'espace," Bull. des Sci.
M ath., 48, 1924, 294-320.
Pierpont, James: " Some Modern Views of Space," Amer. Math, Soc. Bull., 32, 1926,
225-58.
Ricci-Curbastro, G.: Opere,2 vols., Edizioni Cremonese, 1956-57.
Ricci-Curbastro, G., and T. Levi-Civita: " M6thodes de calcul diff6rentiel absolu
et leurs applicatiots," Math. Ann.,54, 1901, 125-201.
Thomas, T. Y. : " Recent Trends in Geometry," Amer. Math. Soc. ScmicenEnnial
Publications II, 1938, 98 135.
Weatherburn, C. E.: The Deoelo|ment of Multidimcnsional Difcrcntial Geomctry,
Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science,
2t, t933, t2-28.
Weitzenbock, R,: " Neuere Arbeiten der algebraischen Invariantentheorie.
Differentialinvarianten," Eruyk. der Math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner, l9O2-27,
III, Part III, El, l-71.
Weyl, H.: Mathematische Analgse des Raumproblems (1923), Chelsea (reprint), 1964.
+9
The Emergence of Abstract Algebra
Perhaps I may without immodesty lay claim to the appella-
tion of Mathematical Adam, as I believe that f have given
more names (passed into general circulation) of the creatures
of the mathematical reason than all the other mathematicians
of the age combined. J. J. SYLVESTER
l. Tlu Nineteenth-Century Background

In abstract algebra, as in the case of most twentieth-century developments,
the basic concepts and goals were fixed in the nineteenth century' The fact
that algebra can deal with collections of objects that are not necessarily real
or complex numbers was d.emonstrated in a dozen nineteenth-century crea-
tions. Vectors, quaternions, matrices, forms such as ax2 I btcy + c!2, hypet'
numbers of various sorts, transformations, and substitutions or Permutations
are examples of objects that were combined under operations and laws of
operation peculiar to the respective collections. Bven the work on algebraic
,,rmbe.s, though it dealt with classes of complex numbers, brought to the
fore the variety ofalgebras because it demonstrated that only some properties
are applicable to these classes as opposed to the entire'complex number
system.
These various classes of objects were distinguished in accordance with
the properties that the operations on them possessed; and we have seen that
,r"h ,rotiorN as grouP' ring, ideal, and field, and subordinate notions such as
subgroup, invariant iubgroup, and extension field were introduced to identify
thelets of properties. However, nearly all of the nineteenth-century work
on these ,ru.iolr, typ., of algebras dealt with the concrete systems mentioned
above. It *ut o.riy in the last decades of the nineteenth century that the
mathematicians appreciated that they could move up to a new level ol
efficiency by integrating many separate algebras through abstraction ol their
common content. Thus permutation groups, the groups of classes of forms
treated by Gauss, hypernumbers under addition, and transformation groups
could all be treated in one swoop by speaking of a set bf elements or things
subject to an operation whose nature is specified only by certain abstract
r r36
ABSTR,ACT GROUP TIIEORY 1137
properties, the foremost of .these being that the operation applied to two
elements of the set produces a third element of the set' The same advantages
could be achieved for the various collections that formed rings and fields.
Though the idea olworking with abstract collections preceded the axiomatics
of Pasch, Peano, and Hilbert, the latter development undoubtedly acceler-
ated the acceptance of the abstract approach to algebras.
Thus arose abstract algebra as the conscious study of entire classes of
algebras, which individually were not only concrete but which served
purposes in specifi.c areas as substitution groups did in the theory ofequations.
The advantage of obtaining results that might be useful in many specific
areas by considering abstract versions was soon lost sight of, and the study of
abstract structures and the derivation of their properties became an end in
itself.
Abstract algebra has been one of the favored fields of the twentieth
century and is now a vast area. We shall present only the beginnings of the
subject and indicate the almost unlimited opportunities for continued
research. The great difficulty in discussing what has been done in this field is
terminology. Aside from the usual difficulties, that different authors use
different terms and that terms change meaning from one period to another,
abstract algebra is marked and marred by the introduction of hundreds o[
new terms. Every minor variation in concept is distinguished by a new and
often imposing sounding term. A complete dictionary of the terms used
would fill a large book.
2. Abstract GrouP Theory

The first abstract structure to be introduced and treated was the group. A
great many of the basic ideas of abstract group theory can be found implicitly
and explicitly at least as far back as 1800. It is a favorite activity ofhistorians,
now that the abstract theory is in existence, to trace how many ofthe abstract
ideas were foreshadowed by the concrete work of Gauss, Abel, Galois,
Cauchy, and dozens of other men. We shall not devote space to this re-
examination of the past. The only significant Point that bears mentioning is
that, once the abstract notion was acquired, it was relatively easy for the
founders ofabstract SrouP theory to obtain ideas and theorems by rephrasing
this past work.
Before examining the development of the abstract group concept, it may
be well to know where the men were heading. The abstract definition of a
group usually used today calls for a collection of elements, finite or infinite in
number, and an operation which, when applied to any two elements in the
collection, results in an element ofthe collection (the closure property). The
operation is associative; there is an element, a, say, such that for any element
a of the grortp, al : ea: al and to'each element a there exists an inverse
r r38 THE EMERGENCE OF ABSTRACT ALGEBRA
element 4'such that aa' : a'a: e. When the operation is commutative the
group is called commutative or Abelian and the operation is called addition
and denoted by *. The element a is then denoted by 0 and called the zero
element. If the operation is not commutative it is called multiplication and
the element e is denoted by I and called the identity.
The abstract group concePt and the properties that should be attached
to it were slow in coming to light. We may recall (Chap. 31, sec. 6) that
Cayley had proposed the abstract group in 1849, but the merit ofthe notion
was not recognized at the time. In lB58 Dedekind,l far in advance of his
time, gave an abstract definition of finite groups which he derived from
permutation groups. Again in 1877 2 he observed that his modules ofalgebraic
numbers, which call for cr 1 B and cr - p belonging when cr and B do, can be
generalized so that the elements are no longer algebraic numbers and the
operation can be general but must have an inverse and be commutative.
Thus he suggested an abstract finite commutative group. Dedekind's under-
standing of the value of abstraction is noteworthy. He saw clearly in his
work on algebraic number theory the value of structures such as ideals and
fields. He is the effective founder of abstract algebra.
Kronecker,s taking off from work on Kummer's ideal numbers, also
gave what amounts to the abstract definition of a finite Abelian group
similar to Cayley's 1849 concept. He specifies abstract elements, an abstract
operation, the closure proPerty, the associative and commutative properties,
and the existence ofa unique inverse element ofeach element. He then proves
some theorems. Among the various powers of any element 0, there is one
which equals the unit element, l. If z is the smallest exponent for which 0'
equals the unit element, then to each divisor pr of u there is an element {
for which 6u : l.lf 0p and {' both equal I and p and o are the smallest
numbers for which this holds and are relatively prime, then (06)" : l.
Kronecker also gave the first proof of what is now called a basis theorem.
There exists a fundamental finite system of elements 0L, 02, %,. . ' such that
the products
0!,0120\". . ., hi: 1,2,3,"',nt,
represent all of the group just once. The lowest possible values
elements
fl1. n21 ns,... that correspond to 01,02,0.,'.. (that is, for which
qit:1)
are such that each is divisible by the following one and the product ntn2na' ' '
equals the number z of elements in the group. Moreover all the prime factors
of n ane in nr.
In 1878 Cayley wrote four more Papers on finite abstract groups.a In
l. Werke, 3, 439-46.
2. Bull. des Sci. Math., (2), l, 1877, 17-41, p.4l in particular : Werke,3,262-96.
3. Monatsber. Berliner Akad., 1870, 881-89 : lilerke, 1,271-82.
4. Math. Ann., 13, 1878, 561-65; Proc, London Math, Soc.,9, 1878, 126-33; Amer. Jour. of
Math., I,1878, 50-52 and 174-76; all in Vol. l0 of his Collected Math. PaPe$.
ABSTRACT GROT'P THEORY I I39
these, as in his 1849 and 1854 papers, he stressed that a group can be con-
sidered as a general concept and need not be limited to substitution groups'
though, he points out, every (finite) group can be represented as a substitu-
tion group. These papers of Cayley had more influence than his earlier ones
because the time was ripe for an abstraction that embraced more than
substitution groups.
In a joint paper, Frobenius and Ludwig Stickelberger (1850-1936) s
made the advance of reeognizing that the abstract grouP concept embraces
congruences and Gauss's composition of forms as well as the substitution
groups of Galois. They mention groups of infinite order.
Though Eugen Netto, in his book Substitutinnentfuorfu und ihre Anwendung
aqf die Atgebra (lBB2), confined his treatment to substitution groups, his
wording of his concepts and theorems recognized the abstractness of the
concepts. Beyond putting together results established by his predecessors,
Netto treated the concepts of isomorphism and homornorphism. The former
means a one-to-one correspondence between two groups such that if a'D : a,
where a, b, and c are elements of the first group, then a''b' : c', where
a', b', and, c' are the corresponding elements of the second group. A homo-
morphism is a many-to-one correspondence in which again a'b: c imPlies
a'.b' : c'.
By lBB0 new ideas on groups came into the picture. Klein, influenced
by Jordan's work on permutation groups, had shown in his Erlanger Pro-
gramm (Chap. 38, sec. 5) that infinite transformation groups, that is, groups
with infinitely many elements, could be used to classify geometries. These
groups, moreover, are continuous in the sense that arbitrarily small trans-
formations are included in any group or, alternatively stated' the parameters
in the transformations can take on all real values. Thus in the transformations
that express rotation of axes the angle 0 can take on all real values. Klein and
Poincard in their work on automorphic functions had utilized another kind
of infinite group, the discrete or noncontinuous group (Chap. 29, sec. 6).
Sophus Lie, who had worked with Klein around 1870, took up the
notion of continuous transformation groups, but for other Purposes than the
classification of geometries. He had observed that most of the ordinary
differential equations that had been integrated by older methods were
invariant under classes ofcontinuous transformation groups, and he thought
he could throw light on the solution of diflerential equations and classify
them.
ln
lB74 Lie introduced his general theory of transformation groups.s
Such a group is represented by
(l) xi : f,(xr, x2,. . .
5. Jour. filr. Math., 86, l8?9, 21742 = Flobenius, Ces. Abh., l, 545-90.
6. Nachri.chten Kinig. Ges. der Wiss. zu Gdtt., 1874,52942 : Gcs. Abh.,5, l-8,
where the..7f, are analytic in the.r1 and ar. The a, are parameters as opposed to
the 4, which are variables, and (xr, xz, . . ., x*) stands for a point in z-dimen-
sional space. Both the parameters and the variables may take on real or
complex values. Thus in one dimension the class of transformations
, atc+ b
*:A_+a'
where a, b, c, and d take on all real values, is a continuous group. The groups
represented by (l) are called finite, the word finite referring to the number
of parameters. The number of transformations is, of course, infinite' The
oni-dimensional case is a three-parameter group because only the ratios of
a, b, and c to d matter, In the general case the product of two transformations
xi : "ft(xb. . ., xn, a1,. . ., an)

4 : fr@i,.. ., x'n, br,..., bn)
ls
xi : fr(xe. . ., rn, c!,. . ., cn),
where the c, are functions of the a, and b,. In the case of one variable Lie
spoke of the grouP as a simply extended maniflold; for z variables he spoke
of an arbitrarily extended manifold.
In a paper of 1883 on continuous grouPs, published in an obscure
Norwegian journal,? Lie also introduced infinite continuous transformation
groups. These are not defined by equations such as (l) but by means of
differential equations. The resulting transformations do not depend upon a
finite number of continuous parameters but on arbitrary functions. There is
no abstract group concept corresponding to these infinite continuous groups,
and though much work has been done on them, we shall not pursue it here.
It is perhaps ofinterest that Klein and Lie at the beginning oftheir work
defined a group of transformations as one possessing only the closure prop-
erty. The other properties, such as the existence ol an inverse to each trans-
formation, were established by using the properties of the transformations,
or, as in the case of the associative law, were used as obvious ProPerties of
transfiormations. Lie recognized during the course of his work that one
should postulate as part ofthe definition ofa group the existence ofan inverse
to each element.
By IBB0 four main types of groups were known' These are the discon-
tinuous groups offinite order, exemplified by substitution groups; the infinite
discontinuous (or discrete) groups, such as occur in the theory of auto-
morphic functions ; the finite continuous groups of Lie exemplified by the
transformation groups of Klein and the more general analytic transforma-
tions olLie; and the infinite continuous groups of Lie defined by differential
equatiDns.
7. Gx. Abh.,5, 314.-60.
ABSTRACT GROUP TI{EORY t t4r
With the work of Walther von Dyck (1856-1934), the three main roots
of group theory-the theory of equations, number theory, and infinite
transformation groups-were all subsumed under the abstract group con-
cept. Dyck was influenced by Cayley and was a student of Felix Klein. In
lB82 and lBB38 he published papers on abstract groups that included
discrete and continuous groups. His definition of a group calls for a set of
elements and an operation that satisfy the closure property, the associative
but not the commutative property, and the existence of an inverse element
of each element.
Dyck worked more explicitly with the notion of the generators of a
group, which is implicit in Kronecker's basis theorem and explicit in Netto's
work on substitution groups. The generators are a fixed subset olindependent
elements of a group such that every member of the group can be expressed
as the product ofpowers ofthe generators and their inverses. When there are
no restrictions on the generators the group is called a free group. If 11,
Arr... are the generators, then an expression ofthe form
AIA$2. . .,
where the /r, are positive or negative integers, is called a word. There may
be relations among the generators, and these would be of the form
F1(A') : 1;
that is, a word or combination of words equals the identity element of the
group. Dyck then shows that the presence of relations implies an invariant
subgroup and a factor group 6 of the free group G. In his lBB3 paper he
applied the abstract group theory to permutation groups, finite rotation
groups (symmetries of polyhedra), number-theoretic groups, and trans-
formation groups.
of independent postulates for an abstract SrouP were given by
Sets
Huntington,s E. H. Moore,lo and Leonard E. Dickson (1874-1954).11
These as well as other postulate systems are minor variations of each other.
Having arrived at the abstract notion of a group, the mathematicians
turned to proving theorems about abstract groups that were suggested by
known results for concrete cases. Thus Frobeniusl2 proved Sylow's theorem
(Chap. 31, sec. 6) for finite abstract groups. Every finite group whose order,
that is, the number of elements; is divisible by the zth power of a prime I
always contains a subgroup of order p'.
Beyond searching concrete groups for properties that may hold for
abstract groups, many men introduced concePts directly for abstract grouPs.
8. Math. Ann.,20, 1882, 144 and 22, 1883, 70-118.
9. Amer. Math. Soc. Bull.,8, 1902, 296-300 and 38&-91, and Amer. Math. Soc. Truts.,6,
1905, l8l-97.
10. Amer. Math. Soc. Trans.,3, 1902, 485-92, and 6, 1905, 179-80.
ll. Amer. Math. Soc. Tratt.,6, 1905, 198-204.
12. Jour. far Math., lOO, 1887, 179-81 = Ges. Abh.,2,301-3,
t t42 THE EMERGENCE OF ABSTRACT ALGEBRA
Dedekind 13 and George A. Miller (1863-1951)14 treated non-Abelian

groups in which every subgroup is a normal (invariant) subgroup. Dedekind
in his lB97 paper and Millerls introduced the notions of commutator and
commutator subgroup. If .r and t are any two elements of a group G, the
element s- 1, - ls, is called the commutator of s and l. Both Dedekind and
Miller used this notion to prove theorems. For example, the set of all com-
mutators ofall (ordered) pairs ofelements ofa group G generates an invariant
subgroup of G. The automorphisms of a group, that is, the one-to-one trans-
formations of the members of a group into themselves under which if
a.b : e then a' .b' : c' , were studied on an abstract basis by Holder 16 and
E. H. Moore.l?
The further development of abstract group theory has pursued many
directions. One of these taken over from substitution groups by H<ilder in the
1893 paper is to find all the groups ofa given order, a problem Cayley had
also mentioned in his 1878 papers.18 The general problem has defied
solution. Hence particular orders have been investigated, such as p2q2 where
p and g are prime. A related problem has been the enumeration ofintransitive
and primitive and imprimitive groups of various degrees (the number of
letters in a substitution group).
Another direction of research has been the determination of composite
or solvable groups and simple groups, that is, those which have no invariant
subgroups (other than the identity). This problem of course derives from
Galois theory. Hdlder, after introducing the abstract notion of a factor
group,le treated simple groups 20 and composite groups,21 Among results are
the fact that a cyclic group of prime order is simple and so is the alternating
group of all even permutations on n letters for z > 5. Many other finite
simple groups have been found.
As for solvable groups, Frobenius devoted several papers to the problem.
He found, for example,22 that all groups whose order is not divisible by the
square ofa prime are solvable.2s The problem of investigating which groups
13. Math. Au.,48, 1897, 548-61 = Werkc,2,87-102.
14. Anw. Math. Soc. Bull., 4, 1898,510-15 = Coll. Works, l, 266-69.
15. Amcr. Math. Soc. Bull., 4, 1898, 135-39 : Coll. Works, l' 254-57.
16. Math. Ann.,43, 1893, 30t-412.
17. Amet. Math. Soc. Bull., l, 1895,61-66, and 2, 1896,3343.
18. Coll. Math. Palns, lO, 4O3.
19. Math. Ann., 34, 1889,26-56.
20. Math. Am., 40, 1892, 55-48, and 43, 1893, 301412.
21. Math. Ann., 46, 1895,321-422.
22. Sitzungsbt. Akad. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1893, 337-45, and 1895, 1027-44 : Ges. Abh.' 2,
565-?3,677-9+.
23. A recent result of major importance was obtained by Watter Feit (1930-) andJohnG.
Thompson (Pacfu Jour, of Math., 13, Pafi 2, 1963, 775-1029). All finite groups of odd
order are solvable. The suggestion that this might be the case was made by Burnside in
1906.
ABSTRACT GROUP THEORY It43
are solvable is part ofthe broader problem of determining the structure ofa
given group.
Dyck in his papers of 1BB2 and 1883 had introduced the abstract idea
ofa group defined by generators and relations among the generators. Given a
group defined in terms of a finite number of generators and relations, the
identity or word problem, as formulated by Max Dehn,za is the task of
determining whether any " word " or product of elements is equal to the
unit element. Any set of relations may be given because at worst the trivial
group consisting only of the identity satisfies them. To decide whether a
group given by generators and relations is trivial is not trivial. In fact there
is no effective procedure. For one defining relation Wilhelm Magnus (1907-)
showed 25 that the word problem is solvable. But the general problem is
not.26
Another famous unsolved problem of ordinary group theory is Burn-
side's problem. Any finite group has the properties that it is finitely generated
and every element has finite order. In 1902 27 William Burnside (1852-1927)
asked whether the converse was true; that is, ifa group G is finitely generated
and if every element has finite order, is G finite? This problem has attracted
a great deal ofattention and only specializations ofit have received solutions.
Still another problem, the isomorphism problem, is to determine when two
groups, each defined by generators and relations, are isomorphic.
One of the surprising turns in group theory is that shortly after the
abstract theory had been launched, the mathematicians turned to representa-
tions by more concrete algebras in order to obtain results for the abstract
groups. Cayley had pointed out in his 1854 paper that any finite absuact
group can be represented by a group of permutations. We have also noted
(Chap. 31, sec. 6) that Jordan in 1878 introduced the representation ofsub-
stitution groups by linear transformations. These transformations or their
matrices have proved to be the most effective rePresentation of abstract
groups and are called linear representations.
A matrix representation of a group G is a homomorphic correspondence
of the elements g of G to a set of non-singular square matrices l(g) of fixed
order and with complex elements. The homomorphism implies that
A(e'e) : A(dA(s)
91 and, g, of G. There are many matrix representations of a group G
for all
because the order (number of rows or columns) can be altered, and even for
a given order the correspondence can be altered. Also one can add two
24. Math. Ann.,7l,l9l I, llH4.
25. Math. Ann., lO6, 1932,295-307.
26. This was provcd in 1955 by P. S. Novikov. See Amerhan Math. Soc. Translathrs (2),9,
1958, l-122.
27 . Quart.,Jour. of Math., 33, 230-38.
| 144 THE EMERGENCE OF ABSTRACT ALGEBRA
representations. If for each element g ol G, Ao is the corresponding matrix of

one representation olorder m and, Bo is the corresponding matrix ol order z,
then
(r ;)
is another representation, which is called the sum of the separate rePresenta-
tions. Likewise if
,, : (; ';r)
is another representation, when Bo and D, are non-singular matrices oforders
m and. n respectively, the .Bo and D, are also representations, and of lower
order than E, Eo is called a graduated representation ; it and any representa-
tion equivalent to it (F;rEsFs is an equivalent representation ifF is non-
singular and of the order of E ) is called reducible. A rePresentation not
equivalent to a graduated one is called irreducible' The basic idea of an
irreducible representation consisting of a set ol linear transformations in z
variables is that it is a homomorphic or isomorphic representation in which
it is impossible to choose m < n linear functions of the variables which are
transformed among themselves by every operation of the group they repre-
sent. A representation that is equivalent to the sum of irreducible represen-
tations is called completely reducible.
Every finite group has a particular representation called regular. Sup-
pose the elements are labeled gu gz, . . . , g*. Let a be any one of the g's. We
consider an z by n matrix. Suppose a& : €t. Then we place a I in the (i, j)
place of the matrix. This is done for all g, and the fixed a. All the other
elements of the matrix are taken to be 0. The matrix so obtained corresponds
to a. There is such a matrix for each g of the group and this set of matrices is
a left regular representation. Likewise by forming the Products gia we get a
right regular representation. By reordering the g's of the group we can get
other regular representations. The notion of a regular representation was
introduced by Charles S. Peirce in 1879.28
The representation of substitution groups by linear transformations of
the form
*i:)o,1*,, i: 1,2,...,n,
initiated by Jordan was broadened to the study of representations of all

finite abstract groups by Frobenius, Burnside, Theodor Molien (l86l-1941),
and Issai Schur (1875-1941) in the latter part ofthe nineteenth century and
28. Amer. Jour. of Math.,4, 1881,221-25.

ABSTRACT GROUP THEORY I I45
the first part of the twentieth. Frobenius 2s introduced for finite grouPs the
notions of reducible and completely reducible representations and showed
that a regular representation contains all the irreducible representations. In
other papers published from lB97 to 1910, some in conjunction with Schur,
he proved many other results, including the fact that there are only a few
irreducible representations, out of which all the others are composed.
Burnsideso gave another major result, a necessary and sufficient condi-
tion on the coefficients of a group of linear transformations in z variables in
order that the group be reducible. The fact that any finite group of linear
transformations is completely reducible was first proved by Heinrich Maschke
(1853-1908).31 Representation theory for finite groups has led to important
theorems for abstract groups. In the second quarter of this century' rePresen-
tation theory was extended to continuous grouPs, but this development will
not be pursued here.
Aiding in the study of group representations is the notion of group
character. This notion, which can be traced back to the work of Gauss,
Dirichlet, and Heinrich Weber (see note 35), was formulated abstractly by
Dedekind for Abelian groups in the third edition of Dirichlet's Vorlesungen
ilber Zahlentheorie (1879). A character of a group is a function x(s) defined
on all the elements s such that it is not zero for any s and *(ss') : r(s)r(s').
Two characters are distinct if x(s) * r'(s) for at least one s of the group.
This notion was generalized to all finite groups by Frobenius. After
having formulated a rather complex definition,S2 he gave a simpler defini-
tion,33 which is now standard. The character function is the trace (sum ofthe
main diagonal elements) of the matrices of an irreducible representation of
the group. The same concept was applied later by Frobenius and others to
infinite groups.
Group characters furnish in particular a determination of the minimum
number ofvariables in terms ofwhich a given finite group can be represented
as a linear transformation group. For commutative grouPs they permit a
determination of all subgroups,
Displaying the usual exuberance for the current vogue, many mathe-
maticians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries thought that
all mathematics worth remembering would ultimately be comprised in the
theory of groups. Klein in particular, though he did not like the formalism of
abstract group theory, favored the group concept because he thought it would
unify mathematics. Poincard was equally enthusiastic. He said,3a ". . . the
29. Sitzungsber. Akad. Wi,ss- zu Beilin, 1897, 99'1-1015 : Ges. Abh.,3, 82-103.
30. Proc, Loulon Math. Soe,, (2),3, 1905, 430-34.
31. Math. Am.,52, 1899, 363-68.
32. Si.tzungsber. Akad. Wi.ss. zu Berlin, 1896,985-1021 : Gu. Abh,'3, l-37.
33. Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. zu Beilin, 1897, 99'l-1015 : Ges. Abh.,3, 82-103.
34. Acta Math.,38, 1921, 145.
theory of groups is, so to say, the whole of mathematics divested of its matter
and reduced to pure form."
3. Tlu Abstratt Tluory of Firlds

The concept ofa field I generated by z quantities a!, dz,. .., a,,, that is, the
set of all quantities formed by adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing
these quantities (except division by 0) and the concept of an extension field
formed by adjoining a new element A not in R, are in Galois's work. His
fields were the domains of rationality of the coefficients of an equation and
extensions were made by adjunction of a root. The concept also has a quite
different origin in Dedekind's and Kronecker's work on algebraic numbers
(Chap. 34, sec. 3), and in fact the word "field" (Kdrpn) is due to Dedekind'
The abstract theory of fields was initiated by Heinrich Weber, who had
already espoused the abstract viewpoint for groups. In 1893s5 he gave an
abstract formulation of Galois theory wherein he introduced (commutative)
fields as e>rtensions of grouPs. A field, as Weber specifies, is a collection of
elements subject to two oPerations, called addition and multiplication, which
satisfr the closure condition, the associative and commutative laws, and the
distributive law. Moreover each element must have a unique inverse under
each operation, excePt for division by 0. Weber stressed group and field
36 and
as the two major concePts of algebra. Somewhat later, Dickson
Huntin$ons? gave independent postulates for a field.
To the fields that were known in the nineteenth century, the rational,
real and complex numbers, algebraic number fields, and fields of rational
functions in one or several variables, Kurt Hensel added another type,
p-adic fields, which initiated new work in algebraic numbers (Tfuorie der
algebraisclun Zahten, l90B). Hensel observed, first of all, that any ordinary
integer D can be expressed in one and only one way as a sum of powers of a
prime p. That is,
D: do + dLp + "'* d*?*,
in which d, is some integer from 0 to p - l. For example,

14:2+3+32
216 -- 2.3s + 2.34.
Similarly any rational number r (not 0) can be written in the form
, : iP",
a
35. Mart. Ann.,43,1893, 521-49. For grouPs see Math. Ana.,20, 1882, 301-29'
36. Ann. Math. Soc. Trans,,4, 1903' 13-20, and 6, 1905, 198-204'
!7. Amer. Math. Soc. Trans.,4, 1903, 3l-37, and 6, 1905, l8l-97.
THE ABSTRACT THEORY OF FIELDS t r47
where a and , are integers not divisible by p and z is 0 or a positive or

negative integer. Hensel generalized on these observations and introduced
1-adic numbers. These are expressions ofthe form
(2) g
Z,,P',
wherep is a prime and the coefficients, the c,'s, are ordinary rational numbers
reduced to their lowest form whose denominator is not divisible by 1. Such
expressions need not in general have values as ordinary numbers. However,
by definition they are mathematical entities.
Hensel defined the four basic operations with these numbers and showed
that they are a field. A subset of the 1-adic numbers can be put into one-to-
one correspondence with the ordinary rational numbers, and in fact this
subset is isomorphic to the rational numbers in the full sense of an isomor-
phism between two fields. In the field of p-adic numbers, Hensel defined
units, integral 1-adic numbers, and other notions analogous to those of the
ordinary rational numbers.
By introducing polynomials whose coefficients are p-adic numbers,
Flensel was able to speak of p-adic roots of polynomial equations and extend
to these roots all of the concepts of algebraic number fields. Thus there are
p-adic integral algebraic numbers and more general p-adic algebraic
numbers, and one can form fields of p-adic algebraic numbers that are
extensions ofthe " rational" p-adic numbers defined by (2). In fact, all ofthe
ordinary theory of algebraic numbers is carried over to p-adic numbers.
Surprisingly perhaps, the theory of p-adic algebraic numbers leads to results
on ordinary algebraic numbers. It has also been useful in treating quadratic
forms and has led to the notion of valuation fields.
The growing variety of fields motivated Ernst Steinitz (187l-1928),
who was very much influenced by Weber's work, to undertake a compre-
hensive study of abstract fields; this he did in his fundamental paper, Alge-
braischen Theorie der Kiirper.3B All fields, according to Steinitz, can be divided
into two principal types. Let r( be a field and consider all subfields of .r( (for
example, the rational numbers are a subfield of the real numbers). The
elements common to all the subfields are also a subfield, called the prime 6eld
P of r(. Two types of prime fields are possible. The unit element e is contained
in P and, therefore, so are
er2er, , ., ner. , ..
These elements are either all different or there exists an ordinary integer I
such that pe : 0. In the first case P must contain all fractions nelme, and
38, Jour. fir Math., 137,1910, 167-309.

r r48 TIIE EMERGENCE OF ABSTRACT ALGEBRA
since these elements form a field, P must be isomorphic to the field of rational
numbers and l( is said to have characteristic 0.
If, on the other hand, pe : 0, it is readily shown that the smallest such
1 must be a prime and the field must be isomorphic to the field of
integral
residues modulo p, that is, 0, 1,. ..,y' - 1. Then ,I( is said to be a field of
characteristic p. Any subfield of r( has the same characteristic' Then pa :
Pca : O; that is, all expressions in r( can be reduced modulo p'
From the prime field P in either of the types just described, the original
field r( can be obtained by the process of adjunction. The method is to take
an element a in -r( but not in P and to form all rational functions R(a) of a
with coefficients in P and then, if necessary, to take 6 not in rR(a) and do the
same with 6, and to continue the process as long as necessary'
If one starts with an arbitrary field r( one can make various types of
adjunctions. A simple adjunction is obtained by adjoining a single element r'
The enlarged field must contain all expressions of the form
(3) ao + ay* *"'* an!(o,
where the ai are elements of ff' If these expressions
are all different, then the
extended field is the field 1( (x) of all rational functions of x with coefficients
in r(. Such an adjunction is called a transcendental adjunction and r( (x) is
called a transcendental extension. If some of the expressions (3) are equal,
one can show that there must exist a relation (using c for r)
-f(") : o^ a b1a^-r *...* b-: O
with the D1 in rK and with /(*) irreducible in K. Then the expressions

cra^-r 1...* c^
with the C, in r( constitute a field K(a) formed by the adjunction of a to I('
This field is called a simple algebraic extension of r(' In K (a),f(x) has a root,
and conversely, if an arbitrary irreducible;fl(x) in lf is chosen, then one can
construct a -r( (a) in which/(r) has a root.
A fundamental result due to steinitz is that every field can be obtained
lrom its prime field by first making a series ol (possibly infinite) tran-
scendental adjunctions and then a series of algebraic adjunctions to the
trars.errdentul field. A field I('is said to be an algebraic extension of r( if it
can be obtained by successive simple algebraic adjunctions' If the number
of adjunctions is finite, r(' is said to be of finite rank'
irTo,.lr..y field can be enlarged by algebraic adjunctions' For example'
the complex numbers cannot be because every f (x) is reducible in this field.
Such a held is algebraically complete. Steinitz also proved that for every
field .I( there is a unique algebraically complete field i('which is algebraic
over-t(inthesensethatallotheralgebraicallycompletefieldsover-r(
(containing.I() contain a subfield equivalent to y'(''
THE ABSTRACT TI{EORY O[' FIELDS tr49
Steinitz considered also the problem of determining the fields in which
the Galois theory of equations holds. To say that Galois theory holds in a
field means the following: A Galois field .K- over a given field r( is an algebraic
field in which every irreducible f(x) in -r( either remains irreducible or
decomposes into a product of linear factors. To every Galois field .f, there
exists a set of automorphisms, each of which transforms the elements of .R
into other elements of .I( and such that u * B and cp correspond to a' t p'
and u' p' while all elements ol JC remain invariant (correspond to them-
selves). The set of automorphisms forms a group G, the Galois group of .R
with respect to J(. The main theorem of Galois theory asserts that there is a
unique correspondence between the subgroups of G and, the subfields of i(
such that to any subgroup G' of G there corresponds a subfield r(' consisting
of all elements left invariant by G' and conversely. Galois theory is said to
hold for those fields in which this theorem holds. Steinitz's result is essentially
that Galois theory holds in those fields of finite rank that can be obtained
from a given field by a series of adjunctions ofroots of irreducible;f(x) which
have no equal roots. Fields in which all irreducible;f(*) have no equal roots
are called separable. (Steinitz said oollkommcn or complete.)
The theory of fields also includes, as Steinitz's classification indicates,
finite fields of characteristic p. A simple example of the latter is the set of all
residues (remainders) modulo a prime p. The concept of a finite field is due
to Galois. In lB30 he published a definitive paper, "Sur la thdorie des
nombres." se Galois wished to solve congruences
F(x) : 0 modf,
where p is a prime and .P(.r) is a polynomial of degree z. He took F(*) to be
irreducible (modulol), so that the congruence did not have integral or
irrational roots. This obliged him to consider other solutions, which were
suggested by the imaginary numbers. Galois denoted one of the roots ofF(*)
by i (which is not.y'J). He then considered the expression
(4) an * aj + a2i2 + - -.+ an-tin-L,
where the a, are whole numbers. When these coefficients assume separately
all the least positive residues, modulo 1, this expression can take on only y''
values. Let cr be one of these non-zero values, of which there are 1' - I. The
powers of cr also have the form (4). Hence these powers cannot be all difler-
ent. There must then be at least one power a^ : l, where rn is the smallest
of such values. Then there will be z different values
(5) l, a, a2, . . ., r*-1.
Ilwe multiply these m quantities by an expression p of the same form, we
obtain a new group of quantities different from (5) and from each other.
39. Bulletin des Scierces Matlumatiques dc Firussac, 13, 1830, 42UX5 : (Euurcs, 1897, 1123.
Multiplyingtheset(5)byywillproducemoresuchquantities,untilwe
p' - I or ae"-r : I and so
obtain all o}the form (4). Hence rz must divide
ac':a.Thep'valuesoftheform(4)constituteafinitefield'Galoishad
shown in this concrete situation that the number of elements in a Galois
field of characteristic p is a power of1.
E. fI. Moore{o showed that any finite abstract field is isomorphic to a
p
Galois field of order p", p a prime. There is such a field for every prime and
positive integer z. The characteristic of each field isp' Joseph H' M' Wedder-
Lurn (IASZ-1S+8), a professorPrinceton lJniversity,{l and Dickson
at
provcd simultaneously that any finite field is necessarily commutative (in the
multiplication oPeration). A great deal of work has been done to determine
the s;cture of ihe additive groups contained in Galois fields and the struc-
ture of the fields themselves.
4. Rings
Though the structures rings and ideals were well known and utilized in
Dedef,nd,s and Kronecker's work on algebraic numbers, the abstract thegry
isentire\aproductofthetwentiethcentury.Thewordidealhadalready
been adopted (Chap. 34, sec. 4). Kronecker used the word "order" for
ring;
the latter term was introduced by Hilbert'
Beforediscussingthehistory,itmaybewelltobeclearaboutthemodern
meanings of the concepts. An abstract ring is a collection of elements that
form a Jo-mrrtative group with respect to one operation and are subject to a
second operation applicable to any two elements' The second operation
is
closed and associative but may or may not be commutative. There

may or
may not be a unit element. Moreover the distributive law a(b + c)
:
ab * rc and (D * c)a : ba + ca holds.
Anidealinaringftisasub-ringMsuchthatifabelongstoMandris
any element of ft, then ar and ra belong to M' lf only ar belongs to M' then
M is called a right ideal. If only ra belongs to M, then M is a left ideal. If an
ideal is both right and left, it is called a two-sided ideal. The unit ideal is the
entire ring. The ideat (a) generated by one element a consists of all elements
of the form
ra + na,
then
where r belongs to R and z is any whole number' If R has a unit element'
ta + na : ra-+ nea : (r + ne)a: r'a, where r' is now any element ol 'R'
The ideal generated by one element is called a principal ideal' Any ideal
other thani and .R is a proper ideal' Similarly if ar, ar, ' ' ', a^ ate n
given
elements of a ring .R with unit element the set of all sums /1d1 * ' ' ' * rna^
40. y. Math. Soe. Bull.,3, 1893, ?3-78'

rY.
41. Amer. Math. Soc. Trans.,6, 1905, 349-52'
RINGS r 15 r
with coefficients r in rR is an ideal of R denoted by (a1, a2, . . . , a^). It is the

smallest ideal containing ay az, . . ., a^. A commutative ring .R is called
Noetherian if every ideal has this form.
An ideal M in a ring, since it is a subgroup of the additive group of the
ring, divides the ring into residue classes. Two elements ol R, a and b, are
congruent relative to M if a - D belongs to M or a : b (mod M). Under
a homomorphism 7 from a ring rR to a ring ,R', which calls for 7- (ab) :
(T'a)'(Tb), 7'(a + b) : Ta * Tb and Tl : 1" the elements of 'R which
correspond to the zero element of .R' constitute an ideal called the kernel of
ft, and R' is isomorphic to the ring of residue classes of -i? modulo the kernel.
Conversely, given an ideal Z in rR one may form a ring R modulo L and, a
homomorphism of rR into rQ modulo Z which has Z as its kernel. ,R modulo
L or RIL is called a quotient ring.
The definition of a ring does not call for the existence of an inverse to
each element under multiplication' If an inverse (except for 0) and the unit
element both exist, the ring is called a division ring (division algebra) and
it is in effect a non-commutative (or skew) field. Wedderburn's result already
noted (1905) showed that a finite division ring is a commutative field. Up to
1905 the only division algebras known were commutative fields and quatern-
ions. Then Dickson created a number of new ones, commutative and non-
commutative. In 1914 hea2 and Wedderburna3 gave the first examples of
non-commutative fields with centers (the set of all elements which commute
with each other) of rank zz.aa
In the late nineteenth century a great variety of concrete linear associa-
tive algebras were created (Chap' 32, sec. 6). These algebras, abstractly
considered, are rings, and when the theory of abstract rings was formulated
it absorbed and generalized the work on these concrete algebras. This theory
of linear associative algebras and the whole subject of abstract algebra
received a new impulse when Wedderburn, in his paper "On Hypercomplex
Numbers," a5 took up results of Elie Cartan ( 1869-1951 ; re and generalized
them. The hypercomplex numbers are, we may recall, numbers of the form
(6) t: !t101 + xzez+"'+ xnen,
e1 are qualitative units and the x, are teal or complex numbers.

where the
Wedderburn replaced the x, by members of an arbitrary field F. He called
42. Amer. Math. Soc. Trans., 15, 1914, 3l-46.
43. Amer. Math. Soe. Trans., 15, 1914, 162-66'
44. In 1958 Michel Kervaire (f927-) in Procecdings of the National Acadany of Scicnccs,44'
1958, 280-83 and John Milnor (1931-) in Annals of Math. (2), 68' 1958' 444-49, both using
a result of Raoul Bott (1923-), provcd that the only possible division algebras with rcal
coefficients, if one does not assume the associative and commutativc laws of multiplication,
are the real and complex numbers, quaternions, and the Cayley numbers.
45. Proc. London Math. Sor., (2), 6, 1907, 77-118.
46. Ann. Fac. Sci. de Toulouse, l2B, 1898, l-99 = @uncs' Part II, Vol. I, 7-105.
rr52 TITE EMERGENCE OF ABSTRACT ALGEBRA
these generalized linear associative algebras simply algebras' To treat these

gerre.alired algebras he had to abandon the methods of his predecessors
f,."ur.. a., ..bit..ry field Fis not algebraically closed' He also adopted and
perfected Benjamin Peirce's technique of idempotents'
InWedderburn'swork,tlten,analgebraconsistsofalllinearcombina-
tions of the form (6) with coefficients now in a field F The number of a,,
called basal units, is finite and is the order of the algebra' The sum of two
such elements is given bY
Z*,r, *)r,r,:l(x, + v,)'r'
The scalar Product of an element r of the algebra and an element a of the

field F is defined as
o)n',:Z*t,
and the product of two elements of the algebra is defined by
E *,,)
E u,,,\ :) *,u,,,,,,
i,J
which is completed by a table expressing all products e;21 as some linear

combination olthe a, with coefficients in F. The product is required to satisfy
the associative law. One can always add a unit element (modulus) I such
thatr,l:l.x:xforevery*andthentheelementsofthealgebrainclude
the field F of the coefficients.
Given an algebra l, a subset B of elements which itself forms an algebra
is called a sub-allebra. Ifx belongs to A and y to B andyx and*y both belong^
to B, then B is called an invariant sub-algebra. Ilan algebra I is the sum of
two invariant sub-algebras with no common element, then '4 is called
reducible. It is also said to be the direct sum of the sub-algebras'
A simple algebra is one having no invariant sub-algebra' Wedderburn
also used ut d -oaifi"d Cartan's notion of a semisimple algebra'
To define
this notion, Wedderburn made use of the notion of nilpotent elements' An
element x is nilpotent if .t" : 0 for some integer lr' An element x is said to be
properly nilpotent if xy and zlso gx are nilpotent for every y in an algebra l'
i, *., b" shown that the set of properly nilpotent elements ol an algebra A
Then semi-simple algebra is one having no
form an invariant sub-algebra. a z4
nilpotent invariant sub-algebra.

Wedderburn p.oved ihat every semi-simple algebra can be expressed as
is equivalent
a direct sum ofirreducible algebras and each irreducible algebra
to the direct product of a matrix algebra and a division algebra (primitive
algebra in Wedderburn's terminology). This means that each element of the
irr"educible algebra can be taken to be a matrix whose elements are members
NON.ASSOCIATIVE ALGEBRAS I I53
of the division algebra. Since semi-simple algebras can be reduced to the

direct sum of several simple algebras, this theorem amounts to the deter-
mination of all semi-simple algebras. Still another result uses the notion of a
total matrix algebra, which is just the algebra of all n by z matrices. An
algebra for which the coefficient field .F is the complex numbers and which
contains no properly nilpotent elements is equivalent to a direct sum oftotal
matrix algebras. This sample of results obtained by Wedderburn may give
some indication ol the work done on the generalized linear associative
algebras.
The theory of rings and ideals was Put on a more systematic and axio-
matic basis by Emmy Noether, one of the few great women mathematicians,
who in 1922 became a lecturer at Gottingen. Many results on rings and
ideals were already known when she began her work, but by properly
formulating the abstract notions she was able to subsume these results under
the abstract theory. Thus she reexpressed Hilbert's basis theorem (Chap. 39,
sec. 2) as follows: A ring of polynomials in any number of variables over a
ring of coefficients that has an identity element and a finite basis, itself has a
finite basis. In this reformulation she made the theory of invariants a part of
abstract algebra.
A theory of ideals for polynomial domains had been developed by
Emanuel Lasker (1868-1941)47 in which he sought to give a method of
deciding whether a given polynomial belongs to an ideal generated by r
polynomials. In 1921a8 Emmy Noether showed that this ideal theory for
polynomials can be deduced from Hilbert's basis theorem. Thereby a com-
mon foundation was created for the ideal theory of integral algebraic
numbers and integral algebraic functions (polynomials). Noether and others
penetrated much farther into the abstract theory of rings and ideals and
applied it to rings of differential operators and other algebras. However, an
account of this work would take us too far into special developments.
5. Non-associatiae Algebras
Modern ring theory, or, more properly, an extension of ring theory, also
includes non-associative algebras. The product operation is non-associative
and non-commutative. The other properties oflinear associative algebras are
applicable. There are today several important non-associative algebras.
Historically the most important is the type called a Lie algebra' It is custom-
ary in such algebras to denote the product of two elements a and D by la, bl.
In place ofthe associative law the product operation satisfies two conditions,
la,b): -lb,al and fa, fb,cll + lb,lc,al) + fc,la,bll:0.
47. Math. Ann., 60, 1905, 20-l 16.
48. Math. Ann., 83, 1921,2+-66.
II54 THE EMERGENCE OF ABSTRACT ALGEBRA
The second proPerty is called the Jacobi identity. Incidentally, the vector
product of two vectors satisfies the two conditions.
An ideal in a Lie algebra I is a sub-algebra Zr such that the product of
any element of tr and any element of I, is in Ir. A simple Lie algebra is one
that has no nontrivial ideals. It is semi-simple if it has no Abelian ideals'
Lie algebras arose out of Lie's efforts to study the structure of his
continuous transformation groups. To do this Lie introduced the notion of
infinitesimal transformations.ro Roughly speaking, an infinitesimal trans-
formation is one that moves points an infinitesimal distance. Symbolically it
is represcnted by Lie as
(7) xi: q * 6rXr(xr, *a,''', xn),
where 6l is an infinitesimally small quantity, or

(8) E*, : 66,1rr, tz,''', xo).
The E, is a consequence of a small change in the parameters of the group.

Thus suppose a grouP of transformations is given by
- x, : <$(x, g, a) and Y1 : rlt(x, Y
'
a) .
Let ao be the value of the parameter for which $ and' $ are the identity
transformation so that
x-$(x,g,ao), g -$(x,g,as).
Ifao is changed to do + 64, then by Taylor's theorem
\:4(x,t,o") +HEa*...
Ut : *(x,!, "r) + HDa * .' .
so that neglecting higher powers of 6a gives
Dx:xr -*:ffu, 6y:yr-n:4, ao.

For the fixed ao, O$l\a and 0r!l0a ate functions of x andy so that
fi: il*,u), ff: n@,u)
and
(9) $$ : {(x,g) 6a, $s : q@,Y) 6a.
If Ea is 6t we get the form (7) or (B). The equations (9) represent an infini-
tesimal transformation of the group.
49. Archiv for Mathematik Naturuidcnskab, l, 1876, 152-93 = Ges. Abh',5,42-75'
NON-ASSOCIATIVE ALGEBRAS I I55
Itf(x, y) is an analytic function of x and. g, the effect of an infinitesimal

transformation on it is to replace rf(r, S) by J@ + t 6a,! + 16a), and by
applying Taylor's theorem one finds that to first order
q*
6/: (* - 6a.
'{,
The operator
do
€
u+ ndc
is another way of representing the infinitesimal transformation (9) because

knowledge of one gives the other. Such operators can be added and multi-
plied in the usual sense of differential oPerators.
The number of independent infinitesimal transficrmations or the number
of corresponding independent operators is the number of parameters in the
original group of transformations. The infinitesimal transformations or the
corresponding operators, now denoted by Xy Xr,..., Xn, do determine
the Lie group of transformations. But, equally imPortant' they are them-
selves generators ofa group. Though the product XrX,isnot a linear opera-
tor, the expression called the alternant of X, and Xp
xtx, - xrxh
is a linear operator and is denoted by lX1, X,l. With this Product operation,
the group of operators becomes a Lie algebra.
Lie had begun the work on finding the structure of his simple finite
(continuous) groups with r parameters. He found four main classes of
algebras. Wilhelm K. J. Killing (1847-1923) 60 found that these classes are
correct for all simple algebras but that in addition there are five exceptional
cases of 14,52,78, 133, and 248 parameters. Killing's work contained gaps
and Elie Cartan undertook to fill them.
In his thesis, Sur la structure des groupes dc transformations finis ct continus,sl
Cartan gave the complete classification of all simple Lie algebras over the
field of complex values for the variables and parameters. Like Killing,
Cartan found that they fall into four general classes and the five exceptional
algebras. Cartan constructed the exceptional algebras explicitly. In 191452
Cartan determined all the simple algebras with real values for the parameters
and variables. These results are still basic.
The use of representations to study Lie algebras has been pursued much
as in the case of abstract groups. Cartan, in his thesis and in a paper of I913,53
5O. Math. Ana.,3l, 1888, 252-90, and in Vols. 33, 34, and 36.
51. 1894; 2nd ed., Vuibert, Paris, 1933 : CEwres, Part I, Vol. l, 137-286.
52. Ann. de I'Ecolc Norm. Sgp., 31, 1914, 263-355 = CEwres, Part I, Vol. l, 399-491.
53. Bull. Soc. Math. de France,4l, 1913, 53-96 = (Euorcs, Part I, Vol. l, 355-98.
r 156 TIIE EMERGENCE OF ABSTRACT ALGEBRA
found irreducible representations of the simple Lie algebras' A key result

was obtained by Hermann Weyl.s{ Any representation of a semi-simple Lie
algebra (over an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0) is completely
reducible.
6. The Range of Abstract Algebra

Our few indications of the accomplishments in the field of abstract algebra
certainly do not give the full picture of what was created even in the first
quarter of this century. It may, however, be helpful to indicate the vast area
that was opened up by the conscious turn to abstraction.
Up to about 1900 the various algebraic subjects that had been studied,
whether matrices, the algebras of forms in two, three, or a variables, hyper-
numbers, congruences, or the theory ofsolution of polynomial equations, had
been based on the real and complex number systems' However, the abstract
algebraic movement introduced abstract groups, rings, ideals, division
algebras, and fields. Beyond investigating the properties of such abstract
structures and relationships as isomorphism and homomorphism, mathe-
maticians now found it possible to take almost any algebraic subject and
raise questions about it by replacing the real and complex numbers with any
one of the abstract structures. Thus in place of matrices with complex
elements, one can study matrices with elements that belong to a ring or field.
Similarly one can take problems of the theory of numbers and, replacing the
positive and negative integers and 0 by a ring, reconsider every question that
has previously been investigated for the integers. One can even consider
functions and power series with coefficients in an arbitrary field.
Such generalizations have indeed been made. We have noted that
Wedderburn in his 1907 work generalized previous work on linear associative
algebras (hypernumbers) by replacing the real or complex coefficients by
any field. One can replace the field by a ring and investigate the theorems
that hold under this change. Even the theory of equations with coefficients
in arbitrary or finite fields has been studied.
As another example of the modern tendency to generalize, consider
quadratic forms. These were important with integer coefficients in the study
of the representation of integers as sums ol squares and with real coefficients
as the representation ofconic and quadric surfaces. In the twentieth century
quadratic forms are studied with any and every field as coefficients' As more
abstract structures are introduced, these can be used as the base or coefficient
field of older algebraic theories, and the process of generalization goes on
indefinitely. This use of abstract concePts calls for the use of abstract alge-
braic techniques; thus many formerly distinct subjects were absorbed in
54. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 23, 1925, 27l-309, aod 24, 1926, 328-95 : Ges. Abh.' 2'
543-6+7 .
tt57
abstract algebra. This is the case with large parts of number theory, including
algebraic numbers.
However, abstract algebra has subverted its own role in mathematics.
Its concepts were formulated to unify various seemingly diverse and dis-
similar mathematical domains as, for example, group theory did. Having
formulated the abstract theories, mathematicians turned away from the
original concrete fields and concentrated on the abstract structures. Through
the introduction of hundreds of subordinate concepts, the subject has mush-
roomed into a welter of smaller developments that have little relation to each
other or to the original concrete fields. Unification has been succeeded by
diversification and specialization. Indeed, most workers in the domain of
abstract algebra are no longer aware ofthe origins ofthe abstract structures,
nor are they concerned with the application of their results to the concrete
fields.
Bibliography
Artin, Emil: "The Influence of J. H. M. Wedderburn on the Development of
Modern Algebra," Amer. Math. Soc. Bull., 56, 1950, 65-72.
Bell, Eric T.: " Fifty Years of Algebra in America, 1888-1938," Amcr. Math. Soc.
Semicentennial Publications, II, 1938, l-34.
Bourbaki, N.: Eliments d'histoire des mathimatiques, Hermann, 1960' pp. I 10-28.
Cartan, Elie : " Notice sur les travaux scientifiques," (Euares complihs, Gauthier-
Villars, 1952-55, Part I, Vol. I, pp. l-98.
Dicke, Auguste: Emmy Noether, 1882-1935, Birkhiiuser Verlag, 1970.
Dickson, L. E.: "An Elementary Exposition of Frobenius's Theory of Group-
Characters and Group-Determinants," Annals of Math., 4, 1902,2549.
Liwar Algebras, Cambridge University Press, 1914.
Algebras and Their Arithmetics (1923), G. E. Stechert (reprint), 1938.
Frobenius, F. G.: Cesammelte Abhandlungen,3 vols., Springer-Verlag, 1968.
Hawkins, Thomas : " The Origins of the Theory of Group Characters," Archiac Jor
-:
History oJ Exact Sciences, T, 1971, 142-70.
Maclane, Saunders: "Some Recent Advances in Algebra," Amcr. Math. MonNy,
46, 1939, 3-19. Also in Albert, A. A., ed.: Studizs in Modcrn Algcbra, The
Math. Assn. of Amer., 1963, pp, 9-34.
" Some Additional Advances in Algebra," in Albert, A. A., ed.: Studics ;n
Modern Algebra, The Math. Assn. of Amer., 1963, pp.35-58.
Ore, Oystein: "Some Recent Developments in Abstract Algebra," Aner. Math.
Soc. Bull., 37, 1931, 53748.
"Abstract Ideal Theory," Amn. Math. Soc. Bull., 39, 1933, 72845.
Steinitz, Ernst: Algebraische Theorie d.er Kiirper, W. de Gruyter, l9l0; 2nd rev. ed-,
1930; Chelsea (reprint), 1950. The first edition is the same as the articlc in
Jour. fir Math., 137,1910, 167-309.
Wiman, A.: " Endliche Gruppen linearer Substitutionen," Eneyk. dcr Math. Wiss.,
B. G. Teubner, 1898-1904, l, Part l, 522-54.
Wussing, H. L,: Die Cenzsis dts abstrakten Grupfienbegrifies, VEB Deutscher Verlag
der Wisseruchaften, 1969.
5o
The Beginnings of Topology
I believe that we lack another analysis properly geometric or
linear which expresses location directly as algebra expresses
magnitude. G. }lI. LEIBNIZ
l. Tlu Nahne of Topology

A number of developments of the nineteenth century crystallized in a new
branch of geometry, now called topology but long known as analysis situs.
To put it loosely for the moment' topology is concerned with those properties
ofgeometric figures that remain invariant when the figures are bent, stretched,
shrunk, or deformed in any way that does not create new points or fuse
existing points. The transformation presupposes, in other words, that there
is a one-to-one correspondence between the points of the original figure
and the points of the transformed figure, and that the transformation carries
nearby points into nearby points' This latter proPerty is called continuity,
and the requirement is that the transformation and its inverse both be
continuous. Such a transformation is called a homeomorphism. Topology
is often loosely described as rubber-sheet geometry, because if the figures
were made of rubber, it would be possible to deform many figures into
homeomorphic figures. Thus a rubber band can be deformed into and is
topologically the same as a circle or a square, but it is not topologically the
same as a figure eight, because this would require the fusion of two points
of the band.
Figures are often thought of as being in a surrounding space. For the
purposes of topology two figures can be homeomorphic even though it is
not possible to transform topologically the entire space in which one figure
lies into the space containing the second figure. Thus if one takes a long
rectangular strip ofpaper andjoins the two short ends, he obtains a cylindrical
band. Ifinstead one end is twisted through 360o and then the short ends are
joined, the new figure is topologically equivalent to the old one. But it is
not possible to transform the three-dimensional space into itself topologically
and carry the first figure into the second one.
Topology, as it is understood in this century, breaks down into two
r r58
I I59
somewhat separate divisions : point set topology, which is concerned with

geometrical figures regarded as collections ofpoints with the entire collection
often regarded as a space; and combinatorial or algebraic topology, which
treats geometrical figures as aggregates of smaller building blocks.iust as a
wall is a collection of bricks. Of course notions of point set topology are
used in combinatorial topology, especially for very general geometric
structures.
Topology has had numerous and varied origins. As with most branches
of mathematics, many steps were made which only later were recognized
as belonging to or capable of being subsumed under one new subject. In
the present case the possibility of a distinct significant study was at least
outlined by Klein in his Erlanger Programm (Chap.38, sec. 5). Klein was
generalizing the types of transformation studied in projective and algebraic
geometry and he was already aware through Riemann's work of the impor-
tarce of horrreomorphisms.
2. Point Set Topology

The theory of point sets as initiated by Cantor (Chap. 41, sec. 7) and
extended by Jordan, Borel, and Lebesgue (Chap. 44, secs. 3 and 4) is not
eo ipso concerned with transformations and topological properties. On the
other hand, a set of points regarded as a space is of interest in topology.
What distinguishes a space as opposed to a mere set of points is some concept
that binds the points together. Thus in Euclidean space the distance between
points tells us how close points are to each other and in particular enables
us to define limit points of a set of points.
The origins of point set topology have already been related (Chap.46,
sec. 2). Frdchet in 1906, stimulated by the desire to unify Cantor's theory
of point sets and the treatment of functions as points of a space, which had
become common in the calculus ofvariations, launched the study ofabstract
spaces. The rise of functional analysis with the introduction of Hilbert and
Banach spaces gave additional importance to the study of point sets as
spaces. The properties that proved to be relevant for functional analysis
are topological largely because limits of sequences are important. Further,
the operators of functional analysis are transformations that carry one space
into another.l
As Frdchet pointed out, the binding property need not be the Euclidean
distance function. He introduced (Chap. 46, sec. 2) several different concepts
that can be uscd to specify when a point is a limit point of a sequence of
points. In particular he generalized the notion of distance by introducing
l' The definitions ofthe basic properties ofpoint sets, such as compactness and separability,
have had different meanings for different authors and are still not standardized. We
shall use the present commonly understood meanings.
I I60 THE BEGINNINGS OF TOPOLOGY
the class of metric spaces. In a metric space, which can be two-dimensional

Euclidean space, one speaks of the neighborhood ol a point and means all
those points whose distance from the point is less than some quantity e,
say. Such neighborhoods are circular. One could use square neighborhoods
as well. However, it is also possible to suppose that the neighborhoods,
certain subsets of a given set of points, are specified in some way, even
without the introduction ofa metric. Such spaces are said to have a neighbor-
hood topology. This notion is a generalization of a metric space' Felix
Hausdorff ( 1868-1942), in his Grundziige der Mengenlehre (Essentials of Set
Theory, 1914), used the notion o[ a neighborhood (which Hilbert had
already used in 1902 in a special axiomatic approach to Euclidean plane
geometry) and built up a definitive theory of abstract spaces on this notion'
Hausdorff defines a topological sPace as a set of elements ' together
with a family of subsets u, associated with each x. These subsets are called
neighborhoods and must satisfy the following conditions :
(a) To each point * there is at least one neighborhood U, which
contains the point *.
(b) The intersection of two neighborhoods ofx contains a neighborhood
of *.
(c) Ify is a point in U, there exists a U, such that Uu = U*
(d) If * + y, there exist U, ar,d U, such that U"'Ur: g'
Hausdorfl also introduced countability axioms:
(a) For each point .r, the set of U' is at most countable'
(b) The set of all distinct neighborhoods is countable'
The groundwork in point set topology consists in defining several basic
notions. Thrrt . limit point of a set of points in a neighborhood space is
one such that every neighborhood of the point contains other points of the
set. A set is open if every point ofthe set can be enclosed in a neighborhood
that contains only points of the set. If a set contains all its limit points, then
it is closed, A space or a subset of a space is called comPact if every infinite
subset has a limit point. Thus the points on the usual Euclidean line are
not a comPact set because the infinite set of points corresponding to the
positive integers has no limit point. A set is connected il, no matter how it
i, dl.,rid.d inlo disjoined sets, at least one of these contains limit points of
the other. The curve ofy : 1ur, x is not connected but the curve ofy
: sin l/x
plus the interval ( - l, l) ofthe y-axis is connected' Separability, introduced
ty Frichet in his 1906 thesis, is another basic concept' A space is called
separable if it has a denumerable subset whose closure, the set plus its limit
points, is the space itself.
The notions of continuous transformations and homeomorphism can
now also be introduced. A continuous transformation usually presupposes
POINT SET TOPOLOCY I I6I
that to each point of one space there is associated a unique point of the
second or image space and that given any neighborhood of an image point
there is a neighborhood of the original point (or each original point if there
are many) whose points map into the neighborhood in the image space.
This concept is no more than a generalization of the e - E definition of a
continuous function, the e specifying the neighborhood of a point in the
image space, and the E a neighborhood of the original point. A homeo-
morphism between two spaces S and ?"is a one-to-one correspondence that
is continuous both ways; that is, the transformations from S to ?1 and from
Z to .S are continuous. The basic task of point set topology is to discover
properties that are invariant under continuous transformations and homeo-
morphisms. All of the properties mentioned above are topological invariants.
Hausdorff added many results to the theory of metric spaces. In
particular he added to the notion of completeness, which Fr€chet had
introduced in his 1906 thesis. A space is complete if every sequence {4,,} that
satisfies the condition that given e, there exists an .trI, such that la,, - a^l <
"
lor all m and z greater than 1[, has a limit point. Hausdorff proved that
every metric space can be extended to a complete metric space in one and
only one way.
The introduction of abstract sPaces raised several questions that
prompted much research. For example, if a space is defined by neighbor-
hoods, is it necessarily metrizable; that is, is it possible to introduce a metric
that preserves the structure of the space so that limit Points remain limit
points ? This question was raised by Fr6chet. One result, due to Paul S.
Urysohn (1898-1924), states that every normal topological space can be
metrized.2 A normal space is one in which two disjoined closed sets can
each be enclosed in an open set and the two open sets are disjoined. A
related result of some importance is also due to Urysohn. He proved 3 that
every separable metric sPace, that is, every metric space in which a countable
subset is dense in the space, is homeomorphic to a subset of the Hilbert
cube; the cube consists of the space of all infinite sequences {.r,} such that
0 < r, ( l/i and in which distance is defined by d: t/flt@t= gF.
The question of dimension, as already noted, was raised by Cantor's
demonstration of a one-to-one correspondence of line and plane (Chap. 41,
sec. 7) and by Peano's curve, which fills out a square (Chap. 42, sec. 5).
Frdchet (already working with abstract spaces) and Poincar6 saw the need
for a definition of dimension that would apPly to abstract spaces and yet
grant to line and plane the dimensions usually assumed for them. The def-
inition that had been tacitly accepted was the number ofcoordinates needed
to fix the points of a space. This definition was not applicable to general
spaces.
2. Math. Ann., 94, 1925,262-95.
3. Math. Ann.,94, 1925, 309-15.
I I62 TIIE BECINNINGS OF TOPOLOGY
In l9l2{Poincard gave a recursive definition. A continuum (a closed

connected set) has dimension a if it can be separated into two parts whose
oornmon boundary consists of continua of dimension z - l. Luitzen E. J.
Brouwer (188l-1967) pointed out that the definition does not apply to the
cone with two nappes, because the nappes are separated by a point. Poincari's
definition was improved by Brouwer,E Urysohn,o and Karl Menger ( 1902-).7
The Menger and Urysohn definitions are similar and both are credited
with the now generally accePted definition. Their concept assigns a local
dimension. Menger's formulation is this: The emPty set is defined to be of
dimension - l. A set M is said to be z-dimensional at a point P if n is the
smallest number for which there are arbitrarily small neighborhoods of P
whose boundaries in rV/ have dimension less than z. The set M is called
z-dimensional if its dimension in all of its points is less than or equal to n
but is z in at least one point.
Another widely accepted definition is due to Lebesgue.s A space is
z-dimensional if n is the least number for which coverings by closed sets of
arbitrarily small diameter contain points common to z * I of the covering
sets. Euclidean spaces have the proper dimension under any of the latter
defnitions and the dimension of any space is a topological invariant.
A key result in the theory of dimension is a theorem due to Menger
(Dinadansttumiz, 1928, p. 295) and A. Georg Ndbeling (1907-).s It asserts
that wery z-dimensional comPact metric space is homeomorphic to some
subset of the (2lr * I)-dimensional Euclidean space.
Another problem raised by the work of Jordan and Peano was the
very definition of a curve (Chap.42, sec. 5). The answer was made possible
by the work on dimension theory. Mengerlo and Urysohn 11 defined a
curve as a onedimensional continuum, a continuum being a closed connected
set ofpoints. (The definition requires that an open curve such as the parabola
be closed by a point at infinity.) This definition excludes space-filling curves
and renders the property of being a curve invariant under homeomorphisms.
The subject of point set topology has continued to be enormously
active. It is relatively easy to introduce variations, specializations, and
gencralizations of the axiomatic bases for the various types of spaces' Hun-
dreds of concepts have been introduced and theorems established, though
the ultimate value of these concePts is dubious in most cases. As in other
4, Rtouc fu MltaplEsiquc et dc Morale,20, 1912, 483-504.
5. Jou. fnr Math., 142, l9l3' l'[6-52.
6. Fundanmta Matlumdticac, 7, 1925, 3(u-.137 and 8, 1926, 225-359.
7. Monatsfuftc ftu Msthtmdt* und Phgsik,33, 1923, 148-60 and 34, 1926' 137-61.
8. Fundamcata Mallumatirae,2, 1921, 256-85'
9. Math. Ann., 104, 1930, 7l-80.
lO. Monatstufte f'nr Mathtmatik und Physik, 33, 1923, 148-60 and Math. Ann., 95, 1926,
277-306.
ll. Ftmdamanta Mathematicae, T' 1925,30-l?7, p. 93 in part.
THE BEGINNINOS OT COMBINATORIAL TOPOLOGY r r63
fields, mathematicians have not hesitated to plunge freely and broadly into
point set topology.
3. The Beginnings of Combinatorial Topology

As far back as 1679 Leibniz, inhis Characteristica Geometrica, tried to formulate
basic geometric properties of geometrical figures, to use special symbols to
represent them, and to combine these properties under operations so as to
produce others. He called this study analysis situs or geomctria situs. He
explained in a letter to Huygens of 16791'that he was not satisfied with the
coordinate geometry treatment of geometric figures because, beyond the
fact that the method was not direct or pretty, it was concerned with magni-
tude, whereas "I believe we lack another analysis properly geometric or
linear which expresses location [sitar] directly as algebra expresses magni-
tude." Leibniz's few examples of what he proposed to build still involved
metric properties even though he aimed at geometric algorithms that would
furnish solutions of purely geometric problems. Perhaps because Leibniz
was vague about the kind of geometry he sought, Huygens was not enthusiastic
about his idea and his symbolism. To the extent that he was at all clear,
Leibniz envisioned what we now call combinatorial topology.
A combinatorial property of geometric figures is associated with Euler,
though it was known to Descartes in 1639 and, through the latter's unpub-
lished manuscript, to Leibniz in 1675. If one counts the number of vertices,
edges, and faces of any closed convex polyhedron-fior example, a cube-
then Z - E + F :2. This fact was published by Euler in 1750.13 In l75l
he submitted a proof.la Euler's interest in this relation was to use it to
classify polyhedra. Though he had discovered a property of all closed
convex polyhedra, Euler did not think of invariance under continuous
transformation. Nor did he define the class of polyhedra for which the rela-
tion held.
In l8ll Cauchyls gave another proof. He removed the interior ofa
face and stretched the remaining figure out on a plane. This gives a polygon
firr which V - E + F should be one. He established the latter by triangulat-
ing the figure and then counting the changes as the triangles are removed
one by one. This proof, inadequate because it supposes that any closed
convex polyhedron is homeomorphic with a sphere, was accepted by
nineteenth-century mathematicians,
Another well-known problem, which was a curiosity at the time but
12. Leibniz, Math. Schriften, I Abt., Vol. 2, 1850, 19-20: Gcrhardt, Dcr Brbfucclucl
oon lzibniz m;t Malhematikern,l, 1899, 568 : Chr. Huygens, (Euu. Comp,,8' No. 2192.
13. Noui Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop.,4, 1752-53, 10940, pub. 1758 : Olna, (l)' 26' 7l-93.
14. Noai Comm. Acad. Sci. Petrop,, 4, 1752-53, 140-60, pub. 1758: Olnd, (l),26,9'+-108.
15. Jour. de I'Ecol. Poly.,9, l8l?,6&{6 and 87-98 = @uurcs, (2), 1,7-38.
r r64 THE BEGINNINGS OF TOPOLOGY
Figure 50.1 rrgur(
whose topological nature was later aPPreciated, is the Koenigsberg bridge

problem. In the Pregelarme, a river flowing through Koenigsberg, there are
iwo islands and seven bridges (marked D in Fig. 50. I ) . The villagers amused
themselves by trying to cross all seven bridges in one continuous walk
without recrossing any one. Euler, then at St. Petersburg, heard of the
problem and found the solution in 1735.16 He simplified the representation
of the problem by replacing the land by points and the bridges by line
,"g..rl or arcs and obtained Figure 50'2. The question Euler then framed
was whether it was possible to describe this figure in one continuous motion
of the pencil without recrossing any arcs. He proved it was not possible in
the above case and gave a criterion as to when such paths are or are not
possible for given sets of points and arcs'
1? to the need for the study of basic
Gauss tave frequent utterance
geometric pioperties of figures but made no outstanding contribution' In
ie+a jot""" b. Listing (1806-82), a student of Gauss in 1834 and later
p.ofessor ofphysics at G6ttingen, published Vorstudien zur Topologie, in which
ire discussed what he preferred to call the geometry ol position but, since
this term was used for projective geometry by von Staudt, he used the term
topology.InlB5Bhebegananewseriesoftopologicalinvestigationsthat
*ere f,ublished under the title Der Census railmlicher Complexe (Survey of
Spatiai Complexes).1s Listing sought qualitative laws for geometrical figures.
Tius he attemPted to generalize the Euler relation V - E + F : 2'
The man who first lormulated properly the nature of topological
investigations was Mobius, who was an assistant to Gauss in l8l3' He had
classified the various geometricai properties, projective, affine, similarity'
and congruence and then in 1863 in his "Theorie der elementaren Verwand-
1s he proposed studying the
schaft" lTh"o.y of Elementary Relationships)
16. Comm, Acad. Sci. Petrop,,8,1736, 128-4{., pub' l74l ' An English translation
of this paper
1956'
can be found inJames R. Newman: The World of Mathematics, Sirr,on and Schuster'
Vol. l, 573-80.
17. Werke,8, 270-86.
18. Abh. der Ges. der Wiss. zu Giitt-, lO, 1861, 97-180, and as a book in 1862'
19. Kiiniglich Sijchsischen Ges. der Wiss. zu Leipzig, 15, 1863, lB-57
: Werke,2' +33-71'
THE BEGINNINOS OF COMBINATORIAL TOPOLOGY r r65
DB
Figure 50.3
relationship between two figures whose points are in one-to-one correspond-

ence and such that neighboring points correspond to neighboring points.
.
He began by studying the geometria .ritzs of polyhedra. He stressed that a
polyhedron can be considered as a collection of two-dimensional polygons,
which, since each piece can be triangulated, would make a polyhedron a
collection of triangles. This idea proved to be basic. He also showedzo that
some surfaces could be cut up and laid out as polygons with proper identifi-
cation ofsides. Thus a double ring could be represented as a polygon (Fig.
50.3), provided that the edges that are lettered alike are identified.
In IB5B he and Listing independently discovered one-sided surfaces,
of which the Mribius band is best known (Fig. 50.a). This figure is formed
by taking a rectangular strip of paper, twisting it at one short edge through
180", then joining this edge to the opposite edge. Listing published it in
Der Census; the figure is also described in a publication by M6bius.21 As far
as the band is concerned, its one-sidedness may be characterized by the fact
that it can be painted by a continuous sweep of the brush so that the entire
surface is covered. Ifan untwisted band is painted on one side then the brush
must be moved over an edge to get onto the other face. One-sidedness
may also be defined by means of a perpendicular to the surface. Let it
have a definite direction. If it can be moved arbitrarily over the surface and
have the same direction when it returns to its original position, the surface
is said to be two-sided. If the direction is reversed, the surface is one-sided.
Figure 50.4
20. Werke,2, 518-59.

21. Kdniglith Siichsischen Ges. der Wiss. zu lzilzig, 17, 1865, 3l-68 = Wcrhc, 2, 473-512;
p. 519.
see also
I I66 TIIE BEGINNINGS OF TOPOLOGY
On the Mdbius band the perpendicular will return to the Point on the
" opposite side" with reverse direction.
Still another problem that was later seen to be topological in nature is
called the map problem. The problem is to show that four colors suffice to
color all maps so that countries with at least an arc as a common boundary
are differently colored. The conjecture that four colors will always suffice
was made in lB52 by Francis Guthrie (d. lB99), a little-known professor of
mathematics, at which time his brother Frederick communicated it to De
Morgan. The first article devoted to it was Cayley's;22 in it he says that he
could not obtain a proof. The Proof was attemPted by a number of mathe-
maticians, and though some published proofs were accepted for a time,
they have been shown to be {iallacious and the problem is still open'
The greatest impetus to topological investigations came from Riemann's
work in complex function theory. In his thesis of l85l on complex functions
and in his study of Abelian functions,2s he stressed that to work with func-
tions some theorems of analysis situs were indispensable. In these inves-
tigations he found it necessary to introduce the connectivity of Riemann
..rrf""o. Riemann defined connectivity in the following manner: " If upon
the surface F [with boundaries] there can be drawn z closed curves
dr, dz,. .. , 4,, which neither individually nor in combination completely
bound a part of this surface F, but with whose aid every other closed curve
forms the complete boundary of a part of fl the surface is said to be
(z + l)-fold connected." To reduce the connectivity of a surface (with
boundaries) Riemann states,
By means ofa crosscut lQttaschnittl, that is, a line lying in the interior of
the surface and going from a boundary point to a boundary point, an
(z + I )-fold connected surface can be changed into an z-fold connected
one, F', The parts of the boundary arising from the cutting play the role
of boundary even during the further cutting so that a crosscut can pass
through no Point more than once but can end in one of its earlier points'
. . . To apply these considerations to a surface without boundary, a
closedsurface,wemustchangeitintoaboundedonebythespecialization
of an arbitrary point, so that the first division is made by means of this
point and a crosscut beginning and ending in it, hence by a closed curve'
Riemann gives the example of an anchor ring or torus (fig' 50'5) which is
three-fold connected [genus I or one-dimensional Betti number 2] and can
be changed into a simply connected surliace by means of a closed curve alc
and a crosscut aD'c',
Riemann had thus classified surfaces according to their connectivity
and, as he himself realized, had introduced a topological property' In
22. Proceedings of the Royal Geogrdphical Societg, l, 1879, 25+61 : Coll' Msth' Papers' ll,
74.
23. Jour. fir Malh.,54, 1857, 105-10 : Werke,9l-96; see also ll/crlu,479-82'
THE BEGINNINGS OF COMBINATORIAL TOPOLOGY t 167
50.5
Figure 50.5 Figure 50.6. Sphere with p holes
terms of genus, the term used by the algebraic geometers of the latter part
of the nineteenth century, Riemann had classified closed surfaces by means
of their genus 1, 2p being the number of closed curves floop cuts or .Riic*-
kehrschnitte) needed to make the surface simply connected and, 2p + I to
cut the surface into two distinct pieces. He regarded as intuitively evident
that if two closed (orientable) Riemann surfaces are topologically equivalent
they have the same genus. He also observed that all closed (algebraic)
surfaces of genus zero, that is, simply connected, are topologically (and con-
formally and birationally) equivalent. Each can be mapped topologically
on a sphere.
Since the structure of Riemann surfaces is complicated and a topo-
logically equivalent figure has the same genus, some mathematicians sought
simpler structures. William K. Clifford showed 2a that the Riemann surliace
of an z-valued function with a branch-points can be transformed into a
sphere with p holes where 1D : (w 12) - n * | (Fig. 50.6). There is the
likelihood that Riemann knew and used this model. Klein suggested another
topological model, a sphere with p handles (Fig. 50.7).,6
The study of the topological equivalence of closed surfaces was made
by many men. To state the chief result it is necessary to note the concept of
orientable surfaces. An orientable surface is one that can be triangulated and
each (curvilinear) triangle can be oriented so that any side common to two
triangles has opposite orientations induced on it, Thus the sphere is orientable
but the projective plane (see below) is non-orientable. This fact was discovered
by Klein.26 The chief result, clarified by Klein in this paper, is that two
orientable closed surfaces are homeomorphic if and only if they have the
same genus. For orientable surfaces with boundaries, as Klein also pointed
24. Ptoc. Lon. Math. Soc.,8, 1877,292-304 : Math. Papns,24l-54.

25. Ub$ Rhmams Theorb dzr algcbraischcn Funktiown und ihrer Intcgrah, B. G. Tcubner,
1882; Dover reprint in English, 1963. Also in Klein's Gct. Math. Abh.,3,499-573.
26. Math. Ann., 7, 1874, 549-57 = Ges. Math. Abh.,2, 63-77.
I I68 THE BEGINNINGS OF TOPOLOGY
Figure 50.7. Sphere withP handles
out, the equality of the number of boundary curves must be added to the
above condition. The theorem had been proved by Jordan.27
The complexity of even two-dimensional closed figures was emphasized
by I(lein's introduction in l8B2 (see sec' 23 of the reference in note 25)
of the surface now called the Klein bottle (Fig. 50.8). The neck enters the
bottle without intersecting it and ends smoothly joined to the base along C.
Along D the surface is uninterrupted and yet the tube enters the surface. It
has no edge, no inside, and no outside; it is one-sided and has a one-
dimensional connectivity number of 3 or a genus ol 1. It cannot be con-
structed in three dimensions.
The projective plane is another example of a rather complex closed
surface. Topologically the plane can be represented by a circle with diametri-
cally opposite points identified (Fig. 50.9). The infinitely distant line is
represented by the semicircumference CAD. The surface is closed and its
connectivity number is I or its genus is 0. It can also be formed by pasting
the edge of a circle along the edge of a M<ibius band (which has just a single
edge), though again the figure cannot be constructed in three dimensions
without having points coincide that should be distinct.
Still another impetus to topological research came from algebraic
geometry. We have already related (Chap. 39, sec. B) that the geometers
Figure 50.8
27. Jour. de Math-, (2), I l, 1866, 105-9 : (Euores,4. 85-49.
r r69
Figure 50.9
had turned to the study of the four-dimensional " surfaces " that represent
the domain of algebraic functions of two complex variables and had intro-
duced integrais on these surflaces in the manner analogous to the theory of
algebraic functions and integrals on the two-dimensional Riemann surfaces.
To study these four-dimensional figures, their connectivity was investigated
and the fact learned that such figures cannot be characterized by a single
number as the genus characterizes Riemann surfaces. Some investigations
by Emile Picard around 1890 revealed that at least a one-dimensional and
a two-dimensional connectivity number would be needed to characterize
such surfaces.
The need to study the connectivity of higher-dimensional figures was
appreciated by Enrico Betti (1823-92), a professor of mathematics at the
University of Pisa. He decided that it was just as useful to take the step
to z dimensions. He had met Riemann in Italy, where the latter had gone
for several winters to improve his health, and from him Betti learned about
Riemann's own work and the work of Clebsch. Betti 28 introduced connec-
tivity numbers for each dimension from 1 to z - 1. The one-dimensional
connectivity number is the number of closed curves that can be drawn in
the geometrical structure that do not divide the surface into disjoined
regions. (Riemann's connectivity number was I greater.) The two-dimen-
sional connectivity number is the number of closed sufaces in the figure
that collectively do not bound any three-dimensional region of the figure.
The higher-dimensional connectivity numbers are similarly defined. The
closed curves, surfaces, and higher-dimensional figures involved in these
definitions are called cycles. (If a surface has edges, the curves must be
crosscuts; that is, a curve that goes from a point on one edge to a point on
another edge. Thus the one-dimensional connectivity number of a finite
hollow tube (without ends) is l, because a crosscut from one edge to the
other can be drawn without disconnecting the surface.) For the four-dimen-
sional structures used to represent complex algebraic functions;fl( x, y, z) : Q,
Betti showed that the one-dimensional connectivity number equals the
three-dimensional connectivity number.
28. Annali di Mat., (2),4, 1870-71, 1,10-58.
tlTo THE BEGTNNTNGS OF TOPOLOGY
4. Tlu Combi.natorial Work oJ PoircarC

Toward the end of the century, the only domain of combinatorial topology
that had been rather fully covered was the theory of closed surfaces. Betti's
work was just the beginning of a more general theory. The man who made
the 6rst systematic and general attack on the combinatorial theory of
geometrical figures, and who is regarded as the founder of combinatorial
topology, is Henri Poincard (1854-1912). Poincar6, professor of mathematics
atthe University of Paris, is acknowledged to be the leading mathematician
of the last quarter of the nineteenth and the first part of this century, and
the last man to have had a universal knowledge of mathematics and its
applications. He wrote a vast number of research articles, texts, and popular
articles, which covered almost all the basic areas of mathematics and major
areas of theoretical physics, electromagnetic theory, dynamics, fluid
mechanics, and astronomy. His greatest work is I*s Mithodcs nouaelles de la
nboiquc cChstc (3 vols., lB92-99). Scientific problems were the motivation
for his mathematical research
Before he undertook the combinatorial theory we are about to describe,
Poincard contributed to another area of topology, the qualitative theory of
diflerential equations (Chap. 29, sec. B). That work is basically topological
because it is concerned with the fiorm of the integral curves and the nature
of the singular points' The contribution to combinatorial toPology was
stimulated by the problem of determining the structure of the four-dimen-
sional "surfaces" used to represent algebraic functions Jk,g, z) : O
wherein x, y, and z are complex' He decided that a systematic study of the
analysis situs of general or z-dimensional figures was necessary' After some
notes in the Comptes Rmdus of 1892 and 1893, he published a basic paper in
1895,'e followed by five lengthy supplements running until 1904 in various,
journals. He regarded his work on combinatorial topology as a systematic
way ofstudying n-dimensional geometry, rather than as a study oftopological
invariants.
In his lB95 paper Poincar6 tried to approach the theory ofz-dimensional
figures by using their analytical representations. He did not make much
p.ogto, this way, and he turned to a purely geometric theory of manifolds,
*,hi"h generalizations of Riemann surfaces. A figure is a closed z-dimen-
"t"
sional manifold if each point Possesses neighborhoods that are homeomorphic
to the a-dimensional interior of an n - I sphere. Thus the circle (and any
homeomorphic figure) is a one-dimensional manifold. A spherical surface
or a torus is a two-dimensional manifold. In addition to closed manifolds
there are manifolds with boundaries. A cube or a solid torus is a three-
manifold with boundary. At a boundary point a neighborhood is only part
of the interior of a two-sphere.
29. Jour. dc l'Ecole Polg., (2), l, 1895, l-l2l : (Euares,6' 193-288.

THE COMBINATORIAL WORK OF POINCARf t17t
The method Poincar6 finally adopted appears in his first supplement.so
Though he used curved cells or pieces of his figures and treated manifolds,
we shall formulate his ideas in terms of complexes and simplexes, which were
introduced later by Brouwer. A simplex is merely the z-dimensional triangle.
That is, a zero-dimensional simplex is a point; a one-dimensional simplex
is a line segment; a two-dimensional simplex is a triangle; a three-dimen-
sional one is a tetrahedron ; and the n-dimensional simplex is the generalized
tetrahedron with n * I vertices. The lower-dimensional faces of a simplex
are themselves simplexes. A complex is any finite set of simplexes such that
any two simplexes meet, if at all, in a common face, and every face of every
simplex of the complex is a simplex of the complex. The simplexes are also
called cells.
For the purposes of combinatorial topology each simplex or cell of
every dimension is given an orientation. Thus a two-simplex E2 (a triangle)
with vertices ao, aL, and, a, can be oriented by choosing an order, say ooara2.
Then any order of the a1 which is obtainable from this by an even number of
permutations of the a, is said to have the same orientation. Thus E2 is given
by (a6ap2) or (a2asa1) or (ararao). Any order derivable from the basic one
by an odd number of permutations represents the oppositely oriented
simplex. Thus --O2 is given by (aoa2a) or (arasa2) or (ararao).
The boundary of a simplex consists of the ncxt lower-dimensional
simplexes contained in the given one. Thus the boundary of a two-simplex
consists of three one-simplexes. However, the boundary must be taken with
the proper orientation. To obtain the oriented boundary one adopts the
following rule: The simplex Et
aoaLa2. , ,ak
induces the orientation

(l) (- l)'(auar. , .a1-1a1*1- -.a*)
on each of the (* - l)-dimensional simplexes on its boundary. The Elc-t
may have the orientation given by (l), in which case the incidence number,
which represents the orientation of Ef -l relative to.Eb, is l, or it may have
the opposite orientation, in which case its incidence number is - I . Whether
the incidence number is I or - l, the basic fact is that the boundary of the
boundary of .Ek is 0.
Given any complex one can form a linear combination of its rt-dimen-
sional, oriented simplexes. Thus if Ef is an oriented *-dimensionil simplex,
(2) Ck : crE! + crE\ +. ..* cp!,
where the c, are positive or negative integers, is such a combination and is
called a chain. The numbers c, merely tell us how many times a given simplor
30. Rendiconti del Circolo Malematico di Palcrmo, 13, 1899, 285-343 : (Ewrcs, 6, 290-337.
t t72 TI{E BEGINNINGS OF TOPOLOGY
O9
Figure 50.10
is to be counted, a negative number implying also a change in the orientation

of the simplex. Thus if our figure is a tetrahedron determined by four points
(ana$2as), we could form the chain C3 : 5Ei. The boundary of any chain
is the sum of all the next lower-dimensional simplexes on all simplexes of the
chain, each taken with the proper incidence number and with the multi-
plicity appearing in (2). Since the boundary of a chain is the sum of the
boundaries of each of the simplexes appearing in the chain, the boundary
of the boundary of the chain is zero.
A chain whose boundary is zero is called a cycle. That is, some chains
are cycles. Among cycles some are boundaries of other chains' Thus the
boundary of the simplex El is a cycle that bounds .E!. However, if our
original figure were not the three-dimensional simplex but merely the
suface, we would still have the same cycle but it would not bound in
the figure under consideration, namely, the surface. As another example,
the chain (Fig.50.10)
Cl : (aoa1) I (apr) I (a2ar) * "' * (auao)
is a cycle because the boundary of a1a2, for example, is a, - a1 and the

boundary of the entire chain is zero. But Cl does not bound any two-
dimensional chain. This is intuitively obvious because the complex in question
is the circular ring and the inner hole is not part of the figure'
It is possible for two separate cycles not to bound but for their sum or
difference to bound a region. Thus the sum (or diflerence) of Cf, and CI
(Fig. 50.10) bounds the area in the entire ring. Two such cycles are said to
be dependent. In general the cycles Cy.,. . . , Cf are said to be dependent if
2,,rr
bounds and not all the c1 vre zera.
THE COMBINATORIAL WORK OF POINCAR6 t r73
Figure 50.I I
Poincar6 introduced next the important quantities he called the Betti

numbers (in honor of Enrico Betti). For each dimension of possible simplexes
in a complex, the number of independent cycles of that dimension is called
the Betti number of that dimension (Poincar€ actually used a number that
is 1 more than Betti's connectivity number.) Thus in the case of the ring,
the zero-dimensional Betti number is l, because any point is a cycle but two
points bound the sequence of line segments joining them. The one-dimen-
sional Betti number is 1 because there are one-cycles that do not bound
but any two such one-cycles (their sum or difference) do bound. The two-
dimensional Betti number of the ring is zero because no chain of two sim-
plexes is a cycle. To appreciate what these numbers mean, one can compare
the ring with the circle itself (including its interior). In the latter figure
every one-dimensional cycle bounds so that the one-dimensional Betti
number is zero.
In this lB99 paper, Poincard also introduced what he called torsion
coefficients. It is possible in more complicated structures-for example,
the projective plane-to have a cycle that does not bound but two times
this cycle does bound. Thus if the simplexes are oriented as shown in Figure
50.11, the boundary of the four triangles is twice the line .BB. (We must
remember that AB and BA are the same line segment.) The number 2 is
called a torsion coefficient and the corresponding cycle.B.B a torsion cycle.
There may be a finite number of such independent torsion cycles.
It is clear from even these very simple examples that the Betti numbers
and torsion coefficients of a geometric figure do somehow distinguish one
figure from another, as the circular ring is distinguished from the circle.
In his first supplement (1899) and in the second,3l Poincar6 introduced
a method for computing the Betti numbers of a complex. Each simplex Eo
of dimension g has simplexes of dimension q - I on its boundary. These
have incidence numbers of + I or - t. A (q - I )-dimensional simplex that
does not lie on the boundary of Eo is given the incidence number zero. It
31. Proc. Lon. Math. Soc.,32, 1900,277-308: @wrcq6,338-70.

rr74 THE BECINNINGS OF TOPOLOGY
is now possible to set uP a rectangular matrix that shows the incidence

numbers ef1 of the;rth (q - l)-dimensional simplex with respect to the ith
gdimensional simple:r. There is such a matrix T, fot each dimension I
othcr than zero. T, will have ,ui many rows as there are 4-dimensional
simplexes in the complex and as many columns as there are (q - l)-dimen-
sional simplexes. Thus I gives the incidence relations of the vertices to the
edgo. T, gives the incidence relations of the one-dimensional simplexes to
the t*,o-dimensional ones; and so forth. By elementary operations on the
matrices it is possible to make all the elements not on the main diagonal
zero and those on this diagonal positive integers or zero. Suppose that 7o of
thcse diagonal elements are l. Then Poincar€ shows that the 4-dimensional
Bctti number po (which is one more than Betti's connectivity number) is
lq: dc - Yq,t - lq * |
whcre co is the number of 4-dimensional simplexes.

Poincard distinguished complexes with torsion from those without' In
the Iatter case all the numbers in the main diagonal for all q are 0 or l'
Larger values indicate the presence of torsion.
He also introduced the characteristic i[((') of an z-dimensional
complex .K ". If this has cr* ,t-dimensional simplexes, then by definition
n(,r') :i ,-,,-"-.
k=O
This quantity is a generalization of the Euler number V - E + F PoincarC's

result on tlis characteristic is that ifp* is the ith Betti number of r(n then32
N(rj : )r-r-o-.
k=0
This result is called the Euler'Poincar€ formula.

In his lB95 paper Poincard introduced a basic theorem, known as the
duality theorem. It concerns the Betti numbers of a closed manifold. An
z-dimensional closed manifold, as already noted, is a complex for which
each point has a neighborhood homeomorphic to a region of n-dimensional
Euclidean space. The theorem states that in a closed orientable z-dimensional
manifold the Betti number of dimension I equals the Betti number of
dimension z - 1. His proof, however, was not complete'
In his efforts to distinguish complexes, Poincari introduced (1895) one
other concept that now plays a considerable role in topology, the funda-
mental group of a complex, also known as the Poincar6 group or the first
32. These pL are I less than Poincard's. We use here the statement that is familiar today'
THE COMBINATORIAL I^,ORK OF POINCARf ,t75
Figure 50.
homotopy group. The idea arises from considering the distinction between
simply and multiply connected plane regions' In the interior of a circle all
closed curves can be shrunk to a point. However, in a circular ring some
closed curves, those that surround the inner circular boundary, cannot be
shrunk to a point, whereas those closed curves that do not surround the inner
boundary can be shrunk to a point.
The more precise notion is best approached by considering the closed
curves that start and end at a point yo of the complex. Then those curves
that can be deformed by continuous motion in the space of the complex
onto each other are homotopic to each other and are regarded as one class'
Thus the closed curves starting and ending atyo (Fig. 50'12) in the circular
ring and not enclosing the inner boundary are one class. Those which,
starting and ending at go, do enclose the inner boundary are another class'
Those which, starting and ending at yo enclose the inner boundary z times,
are another class.
It is now possible to define an operation ofone class on another, which
geometrically amounts to starting at yo and' traversing any curve of one
class, then traversing any curve of the second class. The order in which
the curves are chosen and the direction in which a curve is traversed are
distinguished. The classes then form a group' called the fundamental
group of the complex with respect to the base pointyo. This non-commutative
group is now denoted by r{K,yo) where r( is the complex. In reasonable
complexes the group does not actually depend uPon the point. That is, the
groups at yo and yr, say, are isomorphic. For the circular ring the funda-
mental group is infinite cyclic. The simply connected domain usually
referred to in analysis, e.g. the circle and its interior, has only the identity
element for its fundamental group. Just as the circle and the circular ring
difler in their homotopy groups, so it is possible to describe higher-dimen-
sional complexes that differ markedly in this respect.
Poincar6 bequeathed some major conjectures. In his second supplement
he asserted that any two closed manifolds that have the same Betti numbers
t t76 THE BEGINNINGS OT TOPOLOGY
and torsion coemcients are homeomorphic. But in the fifth supplement

33
he gave an example o[ a three-dimensional manifold that has the Betti

numbers and torsion coefficients olthe three-dimensional sphere (the surliice
of a four-dimensional solid sphere) but is not simply connected. Hence he
added simple connectedness as a condition. He then showed that there are
three-dimensional manifiolds with the same Betti numbers and torsion
coefficients but which have different fundamental groups and so are not
homeomorphic. However, James W. Alexander (l BBB-1971), a professor
of mathematics at Princeton University and later at the Institute for Ad-
vanced Study, showed 3a that two three-dimensional manifolds may have
the same Betti numbers, torsion coefficients, and fundamental group and
yet not be homeomorPhic.
In his fifth supplement ( t 904), Poincard made a somewhat more
restricted conjecture, namely, that every simply connected, closed, orientable
three-dimensional manifold is homeomorphic to the sphere of that dimen-
sion. This famous conjecture has been generalized to read: Every simply
connected, closed, z-dimensional manifold that has the Betti numbers and
torsion coefficients of the z-dimensional sphere is homeomorphic to it'
Neither Poincar6's conjecture nor the generalized one has been proven'Ss
Another flamous conjecture, called the Hauptttermuluzg (most important
conjecture) of Poincard, asserts that if 7r and 72 are simplicial (not neces-
sarily straightedged) subdivisions of the same three-manifold, then 7t and
T, have subdivisions that are isomorphic.36
5. Combinatorial Inoariants
The problem of establishing the invariance of combinatorial properties is
to show that any complex homeomorphic to a given complex it the point
set sense has the same combinatorial properties as the given complex' The
proof that the Betti numbers and torsion coefficients are combinatorial
invariants was first given by Alexander.3? His result is that if K and 'I(1 are
any simplicial subdivisions (not necessarily rectilinear) of any two homeo-
morphic (as point sets) polyhedra P and' Pr, then the Betti numbers and
33. Readiconti del Circolo Matematico di Paletmo, 18, 1904, 45-l f0 : CEuores, 6, 435-98'
34. Amer. Math. Soc. Trans.,2O, 1919, 339-42'
35. The generalized conjecture has been proved for z > 5 by Stephen Smale (zlzcr'
Math. Soc. Bull.,66, 1960, 373-75), John R. Stallings (i6r,/.' 485-88) and E' C' Zeeman
(ibid., 67, 1961, 270).
i6. The Hauptaermulung has been shown to be true for finite simplicial complexes (which
are more general than manifolds) of dimension less than three and to be false for such
complexes of dimension greater than five. It is correct for manifolds of dimension less
than or equal to three and an open problem for manifolds of dimension four or greater'
See John i:l.lilnor, Annals of Math., (2), 74, 1961, 575-90.
37, Amer, Math. Soc. Trans., 16, 1915, 148-54.
FIXED POINT THEOREMS t t77
torsion coefficients of P and P1 are equal. The converse is not true, so that
the equality of the Betti numbers and torsion coefficients of two complexes
does not guarantee the homeomorphism of the two complexes.
Another invariant of importance was contributed by L. E. J. Brouwer.
Brouwer became interested in topology through problems in function theory.
He sought to prove that there are 39 - 3 classes of conformally equivalent
Riemann surfaces of genus g > I and was led to take up the related topo-
logical problems. He proved 38 the invariance of the dimension of a complex
in the following sense: If 1( is an z-dimensional, simplicial subdivision of a
polyhedron P, then every simplicial subdivision ofP and every such division
of any polyhedron homeomorphic to P is also an z-dimensional complex.
The proofs of this theorem, as well as Alexander's theorem, are made by
using a method due to Brouwer,ss namely, simplicial approximations of
continuous transformations' Simplicial transformations (simplexes into
simplexes) are themselves no more than the higher-dimensional analogues
of continuous transformations, while the simplicial approximation of
continuous transformations is analogous to linear approximation applied to
continuous functions. If the domain in which the approximation is made is
small, then the approximation serves to represent the continuous transforma-
tion lor the purposes of the invariance proofs.
6. Fixed Point Theorems

Beyond serving to distinguish complexes from one another, combinatorial
methods have produced fixed point theorems that are of geometric signifi-
cance and also have applications to analysis. By introducing notions (which
we shall not take up) such as the class of a mapping of one complex into
anotherao and the degree of a mapping,4l Brouwer was able to treat first
what are called singular points of vector fields on a manifold. Consider the
circle S1, the spherical surface 52, and the z-sphere >i:l 4 : I in Euclidean
(z * l)-dimensional space. On 51 it is possible to have a tangent vector
at each point and such that the lengths and directions of these vectors vary
continuously around the circle while no vector has length zero. There is,
one says, a continuous tangent vector field without singularities on 51.
However, no such field can exist on,S2. Brouwer proveda2 that what happens
on 52 must happen on every even-dimensional sphere; that is, no continuous
vector field can exist on even-dimensional spheres, so that there must be at
least one singular point.
38. Math. Ann.,70, l9l0/ll, l6l-65, and 71, l9ll/12,305-13.

39. Math. Aan.,7l, l9l l/12, 97-l15.
40. Proccedings Koninklijke Akademie tton Wettenschappen te Amsterdam, 12, l9l0' 785-94.
41. Math. Ann., 7 l, l9l l l 12, 97-1 15.
42. Math. Ann., 7l, l9ll112,97-115.

rr78 THE BEGINNINGS OF TOPOLOCY
Closely related to the theory of singular points is the theory of con-

tinuous transformations of complexes into themselves. Of special interest in
such transformations are the fixed points. If we denote by;f(x) the transform
ofa point x under such a transformation, then a fixed point is one for which
f(*) : ,. We may for any point x introduce a vector from x to;f(x). In the
case of a fixed point the vector is indeterminate and the point is a singular
point. The basic theorem on fixed points is due to Brouwer.as It applies to
thc z-dimensional simplex (or a homeomorph of it) and states that every
continuous transformation of the z-simplex into itself possesses at least one
fixed point. Thus a continuous transformation of a circular disc into itself
must possess at least one fixed point. In the same paper Brouwer proved that
every one-to-one continuous transformation of a sphere of even dimension
into itsclf that can be deformed into the identity transformation possesses
at least one fixed point.
Shortly before his death in 1912, Poincar6 showedaa that periodic
orbits would odst in a restricted three-body problem ifa certain topological
theorem holds. The theorem asserts the existence of at least two fixed points
in an annular region between two circles under a topological transformation
of the region that carries each circle into itseli moving one in one direction
and the other in the opposite direction while preserving the area. This
last " tfreorem " of Poincar6 was proved by George D. Birkhoff.a6
Fixed point theorems were generalized to infinite-dimensional function
spaces by Birkhoff and Oliver D. Kellogg in a joint paper{8 and applied
to prove the existence of solutions of differential equations by Jules P.
Schauder (1899-19,10),47 and by Schauder andJean Leray (1906-) in ajoint
paper.'8 A key theorem used for such applications states that if 7 is a
continuous mapping of a closed, convex, compact set of a Banach space into
itself, then Ihas a fixed point.
The use of fixed point theorems to establish the existence ofsolutions of
differential equations is best understood from a rather simple example.
Consider the differential equation
du
fr: 1'(*'Y)
in the interval 0 < r < I and the initial condition !:0 at *:0. The
solution {(.r) satisfies the equation
i@) : !- rP'6@)) d*'

43. Math. Aat., 7 1, l9ll l12, 97-115.
44. Rcadiconti dcl Cbcolo Malematico di Palcrmo,33, 1912, 375-407 = CEwres, 6,499-538.
45. Arur. Math. Soc. Ttans., 14, l9lS, l+-22 : Coll. Math. Papcrs, 1,673-81.
46. Antl Math. Soc. Trans.,23, 1922, 96-l 15 : Birkhoff, Coll. Math. Popcrs, 3, 25174.
47 . Stwlia Matlumatica, 2, 1930, 170-79.
48. Arn. tu l'Ealc Nom. Su!., 51, 1934, 45-78.
GENERALIZATIONS AND EXTENSIONS tt79
We introduce the general transformation
c(") : Jo
F(x,f(x)) dx
where;f(x) is an arbitrary function. This transformation associates / with g

and can be shown to be continuous on the space of continuous flunctions
;t(r) defined on [0, l]. The solution { that we seek is a fixed point of that
function space. Ifone can show that the function space satisfies the conditions
that validate a fixed point theorem, then the existence of { is established.
The fixed point theorems applicable to function spaces do precisely that'
The method illustrated by this simple example enables us to establish the
existence of solutions of nonlinear partial differential equations that are
common in the calculus of variations and hydrodynamics.
7. Generalizations and Extensions

The ideas of Poincard and Brouwer were seized upon by a number of men
who have extended the scope ol topology so much that it is now one of the
most active fields of mathematics. Brouwer himself extended the Jordan
curve theorem.ao This theorem (Chap. 42, sec. 5) can be stated as follows:
Let,S2 be a two-sphere (surface) and J a closed curve (topologically an Sr)
on 52. Then the zero-dimensional Betti number of 52 - J is 2' Since this
Betti number is the number of components, J separates S2 into two regions.
Brouwer's generalization states that an (n - I )-dimensional manifold
separates the z-dimensional Euclidean space rRn into two regions. Alexander6o
generalized Poincar€'s duality theorem and indirectly the Jordan curve
theorem. Alexander's theorem states that the r-dimensional Betti number of
a complex I( in the z-dimensional sphere S" is equal to the (l - / - l)-
dimensional Betti number of the complementary domain S" - K, r I O
arrd r * n - l. For r : 0 the Betti number of l( equals I plus the (, - l)-
dimensional Betti number of S" - .I( and for r : n - I the Betti numhr of
.I( equals the zero-dimensional Betti number of .!" - r( minus I .61 This
theorem generalizes the Jordan curve theorem, for if we take l( to be the
(z - l)-dimensional sphere Sn-1 then the theorem states that the (z - l)-
dimensional Betti number of Sn-1, which is 1, equals the zero-dimensional
Betti number of Sn - Sn - 1 minus I so that the zero-dimensional Betti
number of S" - ,Sn-lis 2 and Sn-l divides S" into two regions.
The definitions ofthe Betti numbers have been modified and generalized
49. Math. Ann.,7l, l9l l/12, 3l'l-19.

50. Amer. Math. Soc. Trans., 23, 1922, 33349.
51. Alexander stated his theorem under the condition that the coemcients of his chains
were integers modulo 2 (see next paragraph). Our statement is for the usual integral
coefficients.
I I8() TI{E BEGINNINGS OF TOPOLOGY
in various ways. Veblen and Alexanders2 introduced chains and cycles

modulo 2 ; that is, in place of oriented simplexes one uses unoriented ones
but the integral coefficients are taken modulo 2. The boundaries of chains
53
are also counted in the same way. Alexander then introduced coefficients
modulo rz for chains and cycles. Solomon Lefschetz (1884-) suggested
rational numbers as coefficients.sa A still broader generalization was made
by Lev S. Pontrjagin (1908-1960),55 in taking the coefficients ofchains to be
elements of an Abelian group. This concePt embraces the previously men-
tioned classes of coefficients as well as another class also utilized, namely,
the real numbers modulo l. All these generalizations, though they do lead
to more general theorems, have not enhanced the power of Betti numbers
and torsion coemcients to distinguish complexes.
Another change in the formulation of basic combinatorial properties,
made during the years 1925 to 1930 by a number of men and possibly
suggested by Emmy Noether, was to recast the theory of chains, cycles, and
bounding cycles into the language of group theory' Chains of the same
dimension can be added to each other in the obvious way, that is, by adding
coefficients of the same simplex ; and since cycles are chains they too can
be added and their sum is a cycle. Thus chains and cycles form groups.
Given a complex r(, to each *-dimensional chain there is a (* - l)-dimen-
sional boundary chain and the sum of two chains has as its boundary the
sum ofthe separate boundary chains. Hence the relation ofchain to boundary
establishes a homomorphism of the group Ck(r() of t-dimensional chains
into a subgroup F1e-1(r() of the group of (k - l)-dimensional chains.
The set of all ft-cycles (,t > 0) is a subgroup Zk(K) ol Ck(K ) and goes under
this homomorphism into the identity element or 0 of Ck-1(.t(). Since every
boundary chain is a cycle, 11x-t(K) is a subgroup of Z*-t(K).
With these facts we may make the following definition: For any ft > 0,
the factor group of Zk(K), that is, the *-dimensional cycles, modulo the
subgroup Hk(K) of the bounding cycles, is called the ftth homology group
of r( and denoted by Bk(K). The number oflinearly independent generators
of this factor group is called the &th Betti number of the complex and denoted
by pr(K). The ,tth homology group may also contain finite cyclic groups
and these correspond to the torsion cycles. In fact the orders of these finite
groups are the torsion coefficients. With this group-theoretic formulation
of the homology groups of a complex, many older results can be reformulated
in group language.
The most significant generalization ol the early part of this century
was to introduce homology theory for general spaces, such as compact
52. Atnals of Math., (2), 14, 1913, 163-78.
53. Amer. Math. Soc. Trans.,28, 1926, 301-29.
54. Annak of Math., (2),29,1928,232-54.
55. Annals of Math., (2),35, 1934,904-14.
I IBI
metric spaces as opposed to figures that are complexes to start with. The
basic schemes were introduced by Paul S. Alexandroff (l8g6-),6s Leopold
Vietoris (l89l-),5? and Eduard dech (1893-1960).ss The details will not be
given, since they involve a totally new approach to homology theory.
However, we should note that this work marks a step toward the fusion of
point set and combinatorial topology.
Bibliography
Bouligand, Georges: Lcs D6fuitions
motlernzs th la dimension, Hermann, 1935.
Dehn, M., and P, Heegard: "Analysis Situs ," Ercgk. der Math. I4ziss., B, G. Teubner,
1907-10, III AB3, 1s3-220.
Franklin, Philip: "The Four Color Problem,', Scripta Mothemarr'ea,6, 193g, 149-56,
t97-2t0_
Hadamard, J. : " L'(Euvre mathdmatique de Poincar6, Acta Math., 38, lg2l,
20347.
Manheim, J. H.: Tlu Gcneis of Point Sct Topologg, Pergamon press, 1964.
Osgood, William F. : " Topics in the Theory of Functions of Several Complex
Variables," M adison Collo quium, Amertcan Mathematical Society, l g l d
pp. lll-230.
PoincarC, Henri: (Eatres, Gauthier-Villars, 1916-56, Vol. 6.
Smith, David E.: A Source Book in Mathematis, Dover (reprint), 1959, Vol. 2,
404-10.
Tietze, H,, and L, Vietoris: " Beziehungen zwischen den verschiedenen Zweigen
der Topologie," Entgk. der Math. Wiss., B. G. Teubner, lgl,+-31, III ABl3,
t4t-237.
Zoretti, L,, and A. Rosenthal: "Die Punktmengen,,' Encyk. da Math. Wiss.,B. G.
Teubner, 1923-27, II CgA, 855-1030.
56. Annals of Marh., (2),50, 1928129, l0l-A7.

57. Math. Au., 97, 1927, 454-72.
58. Furdamentd Mathematbae , 19, 1932, 149-83.
5I
The Foundations of Mathematics
Ircgic is invincible because in order to combat logic it is
necessary to use logrc. PTERRE BourRoux
We know that mathematicians care no more for logic than

logicians for mathematics. The two eyes of exact science are
mathematics and logic: the mathematical sect puts out the
logical eye, the logical sect puts out the mathematical eye,
each bclieving that it 'can see better with one eye than with
AUCUSTUS DE MORCAN
l. Intro&ution
By far the most profound activity of twentieth-century mathematics has been
the research on the foundations. The problems thrust upon the mathema-
ticians, and others that they voluntarily assumed, concern not only the nature
of mathematics but the validity of deductive mathematics.
Several activities converged to bring foundational problems to a head
in the first part of the century. The first was the discovery of contradictions,
euphemistically called paradoxes, notably in set theory. One such contra-
diction, the Burali-Forti paradox, has already been noted (Chap' 41, sec' 9)'
A number of others were discovered in the first few years of this century'
CIearIy the discovery of contradictions disturbed the mathematicians
deeply. Another problem that had gradually been recognized and that
emerged into the open early in this century was the consistency of mathe-
matics (Chap. 43, sec. 6). In view of the paradoxes of set theory consistency
had to be established especially in this area.
During the latter part of the nineteenth century a number of men had
begun to reconsider the foundations of mathematics and, in particular, the
relationship of mathematics to logic. Research in this area (about which
we shall say more later) suggested to some mathematicians that mathematics
could be founded on logic. Others questioned the universal application o[
logical principles, the meaningfulness of some existence proofs, and even the
,"liu.r"" upon logical proof as the substantiation of mathematical results.
r r8z
THE PARADOXES OF SET THEORY r r83
Controversies that had been smoldering before 1900 broke out into open
fire when the paradoxes and the consistency problem added fuel. Thereupon
the question of the proper foundation for all mathematics became vital and
of widespread concern.
2. The Paradoxes d Set Theory

Following hard upon the discovery by Cantor and Burali-Forti ofthe paradox
involving ordinal numbers came a number of other paradoxes or antinomies.
Actually the word paradox is ambiguous' for it can refer to a seeming con-
tradiction. But what the mathematicians actually encountered were un-
questionably contradictions. Let us see first what they were.
One paradox was put in popular form by Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
in l9l8, as the "barber" paradox. A village barber, boasting that he has
no competition, advertises that ofcourse he does not shave those people who
shave themselves, but does shave all those who do not shave themselves.
One day it occurs to him to ask whether he should shave himself. If he
should shave himselt then by the first half of his assertion, he should not
shave himself; but if he does not shave himself, then in accordance with
his boast, he must shave himself. The barber is in a logical predicament.
Still another paradox was formulated by Jules Richard (b. 1862).1 A
simplified version of it was given by G. G' Berry and Russell and published
by the latter.2 The simplified paradox, also known as Richard's, reads as
follows: Every integer can be described in words requiring a certain number
of letters. For example, the number 36 can be described as thirty-six or as
four times nine. The first description uses nine letters and the second thirteen'
There is no one way to describe any given number, but this is not essential.
Now let us divide all the positive whole numbers into two grouPs' tlle first
to include all those that can be described (in at least one way) in 100 letters
or fewer and the second group to include all those numbers that require a
minimum of l0I letters, no matter how described' Only a finite number of
numbers can have a description in 100 or fewer letters, for there are at most
271oo expressions with 100 or fewer letters (and some of these are meaning-
less). There is then a smallest integer in the second group. It can be described
by the phrase, "the least integer not describable in one hundred or fewer
letters." But this phrase requires fewer than 100 letters. Hence, the least
integer not describable in 100 or fewer letters can be described in fewer than
100 letters.
Let us consider another form of this paradox, first stated by Kurt
Grelling (1886-1941) and Leonard Nelson (lBB2-1927) in l90B and
l. Retue GCruhalc dcs Scienccs, 16, 1905, 541.

2. Proc. Lon. Math. Soc., (2), 4, 1906, 29-53.
r r84 THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATIIEMATICS
published in an obscure journal.3 Some words are descriptive of themselves.

For example, the word " polysyllabic " is polysyllabic. On the other hand,
the word " monosyllabic " is not monosyllabic. We shall call those words
that are not descriptive of themselves heterological. In other words the word
X is heterological i[ X is not itself X. Now let us replace X by the word
" heterological." Then the word " heterological " is heterological if hetero-
logical is not heterological.
Cantor pointed out, in a letter to Dedekind of 1899, that one could not
speak ofthe set ofall sets without ending in a contradiction (Chap. 41, sec. 9).
This is essentially what is involved in Russell's paradox (The Principles of
Matfumatis, 1903, p. l0l). The class of all men is not a man. But the class
of all ideas is an idea; the class of all libraries is a library; and the class of
all sets with cardinal number greater than I is such a set. Hence, some classes
are not members of themselves and some are. This description ol classes
includes all and the two types are mutually exclusive. Let us now denote
by M the class of all classes that are members of themselves and by iy' the
class of all classes that are not members of themselves. Now y'y' is itself a
class and we ask whether it belongs to M or to y'r'. If ir' belongs to 1[ then i[
is a member of itself and so must belong to M. On the other hand, if Ir' is a
member of M, since M and N are mutually exclusive classes, .ly' does not
belong to .l[. Hence fl is not a member of itself and should, by virtue of the
definition of N, belong to .lL
The cause of all these paradoxes, as Russell and Whitehead point out,
is that an object is defined in terms ofa class ofobjects that contains the object
being defined. Such definitions are also called impredicative and occur
particularly in set theory. This type of definition is also used, as Zermelo
noted in 1908, to define the lower bound ofa set of numbers and to define
other concepts of analysis. Flence classical analysis contains paradoxes.
Cantor's proof of the nondenumerability of the set of real numbers
(Chap. 41, sec. 7) also uses such an impredicative set. A one-to-one corre-
spondence is assumed to hold between the set of a/l positive integers and the
set M of all real numbers. Then to each integer ,t, there corresponds the
set/(,t). Now/(f) does or does not contain k. Let N be the set of all * such
that * does not belong to f (k). This set -ly' (taken in some order) is a real
number. Hence there should be, by the initial one-to-one correspondence,
an integer n such that z corresponds to try'. Now ifz belongs to i[, it should
not by the definition of .l[. Ifz does not belong to N, then by the definition
of ir' it should belong to y'[. The definition of the set iy' is impredicative
because t belongs to l[ if and only if there exists a set r( in M such that
K : "f (k) and & does not belong to K. Thus in defining N we make use of
the totality M of sets which contains .l/ as a member. That is, to define .ly',
1[ must already be in the set M.
3. Abhandlungen dtr Friesschn Schule,2, 1908, 301-24.
THE AXIOMATIZATION OF SET THEORY r rB5
It is rather easy to fall unwittingly into the trap of introducing impred-

icative definitions. Thus ifone defines the class ofall classes that contain more
than five members, he has defined a class that contains itself. Likewise the
statement, the set S of all sets definable in twenty-five or fewer words, define
S impredicatively.
These paradoxes jolted the mathematicians, while they compromised
not only set theory but large portions of classical analysis. Mathematics as a
logical structure was in a sad state, and mathematicians looked back long-
ingly to the happier days before the paradoxes were recognized.
3. The Axiornatization of Set Theory

It is perhaps not surprising that the mathematicians' first recourse was to
axiomatize Cantor's rather freely formulated and, as some are wont to
say today, naive set theory. The axiomatization of geometry and the number
system had resolved logical problems in those areas, and it seemed likely that
axiomatization would clarify the difficulties in set theory. The task was
first undertaken by the German mathematician Ernst Zermelo who believed
that the paradoxes arose because Cantor had not restricted the concept of
a set. Cantor in 1895a had defined a set as a collection of distinct objects of
our intuition or thought. This was rather vague, and Zermelo therefore
hoped that clear and explicit axioms would clarify what is meant by a set
and what properties sets should have. Cantor himself was not unaware that
his concept ofa set was troublesome. In a letter to Dedekind of 18995 he had
distinguished between consistent and inconsistent sets. Zermelo thought he
could restrict his sets to Cantor's consistent ones and these would suffice
for mathematics. His axiom system 6 contained fundamental concepts and
relations that are defined only by the statements in the axioms themselves.
Among such concepts was the notion ola set itselfand the relation ofbelong-
ing to a set. No properties ofsets were to be used unless granted by the axioms.
The existence ofan infinite set and such operations as the union of sets and
the formation of subsets were also provided lor in the axioms. Notably
Zermelo included the axiom of choice (Chap. 41, sec. 8).
Zermelo's plan was to admit into set theory only those classes that
seemed least likely to generate contradictions. Thus the null class, any
finite class, and the class of natural numbers seemed safe. Given a safe
class, certain classes formed from it, such as any subclass, the union of safe
classes, and the class of all subsets of a safe class, should be safe classes.
Flowever, he avoided complementation for, while r might be a safe class,
+. Math. Ann.,46, 1895,481-512 : C*. Abh.,282-356.
5. Ges. Abh., 44348.
6. Math, Ann.,65, 1908, 261-al.
I I86 THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATTIEMATICS
the complement of .r, that is, all non-r, in some large universe of objects
might not be safe.
Zermelo's development of set theory was improved by Abraham A.
Fraenkel (lBgl-1965).? Additional changes were made by von Neumann'8
The hope of avoiding the paradoxes rests in the case ofthe Zermelo-Fraenkel
system on restricting the types of sets that are admitted while admitting
enough to serve the foundations of analysis. Von Neumann's idea was a
Iittle more daring. He makes the distinction between classes and sets. Classes
are sets so large that they are not contained in other sets or classes, whereas
sets are more restricted classes and may be members of a class' Thus sets
are the safe classes. As von Neumann pointed out, it was not the admission
of the classes that led to contradictions but their being treated as members
of other classes.
Zermelo's formal set theory, as modified by Fraenkel, von Neumann,
and others, is adequate for developing the set theory required for practically
all of classical analysis and avoids the paradoxes to the extent that, as yet,
no one h:rs discovered any within the theory. However, the consistency of
the axiomatized set theory has not been demonstrated. Apropos ofthe open
question of consistency Poincar€ remarked, "We have put a fence around
the herd to protect it from the wolves but we do not know whether some
wolves were not already within the fence."
Bcyond the problem of consistency, the axiomatization of set theory
used the axiom of choice, which is needed to establish parts of standard
analysis, topology, and abstract algebra. This axiom was considered objec-
tiorrable by a number of mathematicians, among them Hadamard, Lebesgue'
Borel, and Baire, and in l9(X, when Zermelo used it to prove the well-
ordering theorem (Chap. 41, sec. B), a host ofobjections flooded thejournals.s
The questions of whether this axiom was essential and whether it was
independent of the others were raised and remained unanswered for some
time (see sec. B).
The axiomatization ofset theory, despite the fact that it left open such
questions as consistency and the role of the axiom of choice, might have put
mathematicians at ease with respect to the paradoxes and have led to a
decline in the interest in foundations. But by this time several schools of
thought on the foundations of mathematics, no doubt stirred into life by the
paradoxes and the problem of consistency, had become active and conten-
tious. To the proponents of these philosophies the axiomatic method as
practiced by Zermelo and others was not satisfactory. To some it was objec-
7. Marh, Ann., 86, l92l122, 23V37, and many later papers.

8. Jour- filr Math., 154, 1925, 219-40, and later papers-
9. The views of thcse mcn are expressed in a famous exchange of letters. See the Ball'
Soc. Math. de France,33, 1905,261-73. Also in E. Borel: Legons sur la tuorie dcs Jonctions,
Gauthier-Villars, 4th ed., 1950, 150-58.

THE RISE OF MATIIEMATICAL LOGIC I tB7
tionable because it presupposed the logic it used, whereas by this time logic
itself and its relation to mathematics was under investigation. Others, more
radical, objected to the reliance upon any kind of logic, particularly as it
was applied to infinite sets. To understand the arguments that various
schools of thought propounded, we must go back in time somewhat.
4. The Rise of Mathematical Logic

One development that caused new controversies as well as dissatisfaction
with the axiomatization of set theory concerns the role oflogic in mathematics;
itarose from the nineteenth-century mathematization of logic. This develop-
ment has its own history.
The power of algebra to symbolize and even mechanize geometrical
arguments had impressed both Descartes and Leibniz, among others (ChaP.
13, sec. B), and both envisioned a broader science than the algebra of
numbers. They contemPlated a general or abstract science of reasoning
that would operate somewhat like ordinary algebra but be applicable to
reasoning in all fields. As Leibniz Put it in one of his papers, "The universal
mathematics is, so to speak, the logic of the imagination," and ought to
treat " all that which in the domain of the imagination is susceptible of
exact determination." With such a logic one might build any edifice of
thought lrom its simple elements to more and more complicated structures.
The universal algebra would be part of logic but an algebraicized logic.
Descartes began modestly by attempting to construct an algebra of logic;
an incomplete sketch of this work is extant.
In pursuit of the same broad goal as Descartes's, Leibniz launched a
more ambitious program' He had paid attention to logic throughout his
life and rather early became entranced with the scheme of the medieval
theologian Raymond Lull (1235-1315) whose book lrs Magna ct Ultima
offered a naive mechanical method for producing new ideas by combining
existing ones but who did have the concePt of a universal science of logic
that would be applicable to all reasoning' Leibniz broke from scholastic
logic and from Lull but became impressed with the possibility of a broad
calculus that would enable man to reason in all fields mechanically and
effortlessly. Leibniz says of his plan for a universal symbolic logic that such
a science, of which ordinary algebra is but a small part, would be limited only
by the necessity of obeying the laws of formal logic. One could name it,
he said, " algebraicoJogical synthesis."
This general science was to provide, first of all, a rational, universal
language that would be adapted to thinking. The concepts, having been
resolved into primitive distinct and nonoverlapping ones, could be combined
in an almost mechanical way. He also thought that symbolism would be
necessary in order to keep the mind from getting lost. Here the influence of
I I88 THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
algebraic symbolism on his thinking is clear. He wanted a symbolic language

capable ofexpressing human thoughts unambiguously and aiding deduction'
This symbolic language was his " universal characteristic'"
In 1666 Leibniz wrote his De Arte Combinatoria,ro which contains among
other matters his early plans for his universal system of reasoning' He then
wrote numerous fragments, which were never published but which are
available in the edition of his philosophical writings (see note l0)' In his
first attempt he associated with each primitive concept a prime number I
,rry composed of several primitive ones was represented by the
"orr""pt
product of the corresponding primes. Thus if 3 represents "man" and 7
;'rational," 2l would represent " rational man." He then sought to translate
the usual rules ol the syllogism into this scheme but was not successful. He
also tried, at another time, to use special symbols in place of prime numbers,
where again complex ideas would be represented by combinations of
symbols. Actually Leibniz thought that the number of primitive ideas would
be few, but this proved to be erroneous. Also one basic operation, conjunc-
tion, for compounding primitive ideas did not suffice.
He also commenced work on an algebra of logic proper' Directly and
indirectly Leibniz had in his algebra concepts we now describe as logical
addition, multiplication, identity, negation, and the null class' He also
called attention to the desirability of studying abstract relations such as
inclusion, one-to-one correspondence, many-to-one correspondences, and
equivalence relations. Some of these, he recognized, have the properties of
symmetry and transitivity. Leibniz did not complete this work; he did not
get beyond the syllogistic rules, which he himself recognized do not encompass
all the logic mathematics uses. Leibniz described his ideas to l'Hospital
and others, but they paid no attention. His logical works remained unedited
until the beginning ofthe twentieth century and so had little direct influence.
During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries a number of men
sketched attempts similar to Leibniz's but got no further than he had'
A more effective if less ambitious step was taken by Augustus De Morgan'
De Morgan published Formal Logic (1847) and many paPers, some of which
in the Transactions Ef the Cambridge Phitosophical Soczaly' He sought
"pp"u..J
to correct defects of and improve on Aristotelian logic. In his Formal Logic
he added a new principle to Aristotelian logic. In the latter the premises
"Some M's are A's" and "Some M's are.B's" permit no conclusion; and,
in fact, this logic says that the middle term M must be used universally, that
is, "All M's" must occur. But De Morgan pointed out that from "Most
M's are A's" and " Most M's are B's," it follows of necessity that " Some
A's are B's." De Morgan put this fact in quantitative form. If there are rn
10. Pub. 1690: G. W. Leibniz: Die lhilosophischen Schiften, ed. by C' I' Gerhardt,
1875-90, Yol. 4, 27-102.
THE RISE OF MATHEMATICAL LOGIC r rBg
of the M's, and d of the hI's are in I and D of the M's are in .8, then there
are at least (a + b - m) A's tb,at are.B's. The point olDe Morgan's observa-
tion is that the terms may be quantified. He was able as a consequence to
introduce many more valid forms of the syllogism. Quantification also
eliminated a defect in Aristotelian logic. The conclusion " Some l's are
B's" which in Aristotelian logic can be drawn from "All l's are.B's" implies
the existence of l's but they need not exist.
De Morgan also initiated the study of the logic of relations. Aristotelian
logic is devoted primarily to the relationship "to be" and either asserts
or denies this relationship. As De Morgan pointed out, this logic could not
prove that if a horse is an animal, then a horse's tail is an animal's tail. It
certainly could not handle a relation such as ,r lovesy. De Morgan introduced
symbolism to handle relations but did not carry this subject very far.
In the area of symbolic logic De Morgan is widely known for what are
now called De Morgan's laws. As he stated them,11 the contrary of an
aggregate is the compound ofthe contraries of the aggregates; the contrary
of a compound is the aggregate of the contraries of the components. In
logical notation these laws read
I- (.r +e) : (I - '()(t - !).
t-xs:(l-") +(r-y).
The contribution of symbolism to an algebra of logic was the major
step made by George Boole (l 815-1864), who was largely self-taught and
became professor ol mathematics at queens College in Cork. Boole was
convinced that the symbolization of language would rigorize logic. His
Mathematie al Analysis of Logic, which appeared on the same day as De
Morgan's Formal Logic, and his An Inaestigation of the Laws of Thought (1854)
contain his major ideas.
Boole's approach was to emphasize extensional logic, that is, a logic
of classes, wherein iets or classes were denoted by x,y, 2,.., whereas the
symbols X, Y, 2,.. . represented individual rnembers. The universal class was
denoted by I and the empty or null class by 0. He used ry to denote the
intersection of two sets (he called the operation election), that is, the set of
elements common to both x and g, and * + y to denote the set consisting
of all the elements in ,r and in y. (Strictly for Boole addition or union
applied only to disjoined sets; W. S. Jevons [ 835-82] generalized the
concept.) The complement of r is denoted by I - *. More generally x - y
is the class of x's that are not y's. The relation of inclusion, that is, x is
contained in y, he wrote as x! : x. The equal sign denoted the identity of
the two classes.
Boole believed that the mind grants to us at once certain elementary
processes of reasoning that are the axioms of logic. For example, the law
ll. Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc., !0, 1858, 173-230.
r r90 THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
of contradiction, that A cannot be both B and not B, is axiomatic. This is

ogressed by
x(l - x) :4.
It is also obvious to the mind that
xy:gx
and so this commutative ProPerty of intersection is another axiom. Equally
obvious is the property
zx:x,
This axiom is a departure from ordinary algebra. Boole also accepted as
axiomatic that
x +y:y + x
and
x(u*o):nt+xa.
With these axioms the law of excluded middle could be stated in the form
*+(l -x) :l;
that is, everything is .r or not r. Every X is I .r(l - y) : 0. No X
becomes
is f reads as ry : 0. Some X arc Y is denoted by *S + 0 and some X are
From the axioms Boole planned to deduce the laws of reasoning by

applying the processes permitted by the axioms. As trivial conclusions he
had that l.x: x and 0'x:0. A slightly more involved argument is
illustrated by the following. From
*+(l-r):l
it follows that
zlx + (l - x)): z'l
and then that
zt+z(l-x):2.
Thus the class of objects z consistS of those that are in * and those that are
inl-x.
Boole observed that the calculus of classes could be interPreted as a
calculus of propositions. Thus if .r and y are propositions instead of classes,
then xy is the joint assertion ofr and y and x * y is the assertion of x or y
or both. The statement *: I would mean that the proposition x is true
and r:0 that x is false. 1-* would mean the denial ol x. However
Boole did not get very far with his calculus of propositions.
TI{E RISE OF MATHEMATICAL LOGIC r r9r
Both De Morgan and Boole can be regarded as the reformers of Aristo-

telian logic and the initiators of an algebra of logic. The eflect oftheir work
was to build a science of logic which thenceforth was detached from philos-
ophy and attached to mathematics.
The calculus of propositions was advanced by Charles S. Peirce.
Peirce distinguished between a proposition and a propositional function'
A proposition, John is a ro;,an, contains only constants. A propositional
function, r is a man, contains variables. Whereas a proposition is true or
false, a propositional function is true for some values of the variable and
false for others. Peirce also introduced propositional functions of two vari-
ables, for example, r knows y.
The men who had built symbolic logic thus far were interested in logic
and in mathematizing that subject. With the work of Gottlob Frege (1848-
1925), professor of mathematics at Jena, mathematical logic takes a new
direction, the one that is pertinent to our account of the foundations of
mathematics. Frege wrote several major works, Bcgrifsschrgll (Calculus of
Concepts, lB79), Die Grundlagen tler Aithmctik (The Foundation of Arith-
metic, 1884), and. Grundge setze der Arithmeti,t (The Fundamental Laws of
Arithmetic; Vol. l, lB93; Vol. 2, 1903). His works are characterized by
precision and thoroughness of detail.
In the area of logic proper, Frege expanded on the use of variables,
quantifiers, and propositional functions; most of this work was done inde-
pendently of his predecessors, including Peirce. In his Begrifsschift Ftege
gave an axiomatic foundation to logic. He introduced many distinctions
that acquired great importance later, for example the distinction between
the statement ofa proposition and the assertion that it is true. The assertion
is denoted by placing the symbol F in front of the proposition. He also
distinguished between an object r and the set {.r} containing just ,, and
between an object belonging to a set and the inclusion of one set in another.
Like Peirce, he used variables and propositional functions, and he indicated
the quantification of his propositional functions, that is, the domain of the
variable or variables for which they are true. He also introduced (1879)
the concept of material implication : ,4 implies B means either that 14 is
true and -B is true or -.4 is false and B is rue or I is false and B is false. This
interpretation of implication is more convenient for mathematical logic'
The logic of relations was also taken up by Frege; thus the relation of order
involved in stating, lor example, that a is greater than D was important in
his work.
Having built up logic on explicit axioms, he proceeded in his Gnndlagm
to his real goal, to build matlumatics as an ettension of logic. He exPress€d the
concepts of arithmetic in terms of the logical concePts. Thus the definitions
and laws of number were derived from logical premises. We shall examine
this construction in connection with the work of Russell and Whitehead.
r r92 THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATIIEMATICS
Unfiortunately Frege's symbolism was quite complex and strange to mathe-

maticians. His work was in fact not well known until it was discovered by
Russell. Rather ironic too is the fact that, just as the second volume of
Crundgesetze was about to go to press, he received a letter lrom Russell, who
informed him of the paradoxes ol set theory. At the close ol Volume 2
(p. 253), Frege remarks, "A scientist can hardly meet with anything more
undesirable than to have the foundation give wayjust as the work is finished.
I was put in this position by a letter from NIr' Bertrand Russell when the
work was nearly through the press."
5. Tlu Logistic School

We left the account of the work on the foundations of mathematics at the
point where the axiomatization of set theory had provided a foundation
that avoided the known paradoxes and yet served as a logical basis for the
existing mathematics. We did point out that this approach was not satis-
factory to many mathematicians. That the consistency of the reai number
system and the theory of sets remained to be proved was acknowledged
by all; consistency was no longer a minor matter. The use of the axiom of
choice was controversial. But beyond these problems was the overall question
of what the proper foundation for mathematics was. The axiomatic move-
ment of the late nineteenth century and the axiomatization of set theory
had proceeded on the basis that the logic employed by mathematics could
be taken for granted. But by the earlv nineteen-hundreds there were several
schools of thought that were no longer content with this presupposition.
The school led by Frege sought to rebuild logic and to build mathematics
on logic. This plan, as we have already noted, was set back by the appearance
of the paradoxes, but it was not abandoned. It was in fact independently
conceived and pursued by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead.
Hilbert, already impressed by the need to establish consistency, began to
formulate his own systematic foundation for mathematics. Still another
group of mathematicians, known as intuitionists, was dissatisfied with the
concepts and proofs introduced in late nineteenth-century analysis' These
men were adherents of a philosophical position that not only could not be
reconciled with some of the methodology of analysis but also challenged the
role of logic. The development of these several philosophies was the major
undertaking in the foundations of mathematics; its outcome was to open up
the entire question of the nature of mathematics. We shall examine each
of these three major schools ol thought.
The first of these is known as the logistic school and its philosophy is
called logicism. The founders are Russell and Whitehead. Independently
of Frege, they had the idea that mathematics is derivable from logic and
therefore is an extension of logic. The basic ideas were sketched by Russell
TIIE LOGISTIC SCHOOL I I93
in hisPrinciples of Mathematics (1903); they were developed in the detailed

work by Whitehead and Russell, the Principia Mathematica (3 vols., l9l0-13).
Since the Principia is the definitive version, we shall base our account on it.
This school starts with the development of logic itself, from which
mathematics follows without any axioms of mathematics proper. The
development of logic consists in stating some axioms of logic, from which
theorems are deduced that may be used in subsequent reasoning. Thus the
laws of logic receive a formal derivation from axioms. The Printipin also
has undefined ideas, as any axiomatic theory must have since it is not possible
to define all the terms without involving an infinite regress of definitions.
Some of these undefined ideas are the notion of an elementary proposition,
the notion of a propositional function, the assertion of the truth of an
elementary proposition, the negation of a proposition, and the disjunction
of two propositions.
Russell and Whitehead explain these notions, though, as they point out,
this explanation is not part of the logical development. By a proposition
they mean simply any sentence stating a fact or a relationship: for example,
John is a man; apples are red; and so forth. A propositional function contains
a variable, so that substitution ofa value for that variable gives a proposition.
Thus "X is an integer" is a propositional function. The negation of a
proposition is intended to mean, "It is not true that the proposition holds,"
so thatifp is the proposition that John is a man, the negation ofp, denoted
by - means, " It is not true that John is a man," or "John is not a man."
p,
The disjunction of two propositions p and q, denoted by ? v q, means y'
or 4. The meaning of " or " here is that intended in the sentence, " Men
or women may apply." That is, men may apply; women may apply; and
both may apply. In the sentence, "That person is a man or a woman,"
" or " has the more common meaning of either one or the other but not
both. Mathematics uses "or" in the first sense, though sometimes the second
sense is the only one possible. For example, "the triangle is isosceles or the
quadrilateral is a parallelogram " illustrates the first sense. We also say that
every number is positive or negative. Here additional facts about positive
and negative numbers say that both cannot be true. Thus the assertion
p v q rlaeal;;s p and. q, -p and q, and p arrd -4.
A most important relationship between propositions is implication, that
is, the truth of one proposition compelling the truth of another. In the
Principia implication, p = q, is defined by -p v q, which in turn means -P
and q, p and q, or -p ard -4. As an illustration consider the implication,
If X is a man, then X is mortal. Here the state of affairs could be
X is not a man and X is mortal;
X is a man and X is mortal;
X is not a man and X is not mortal.
rrg4 THE FOUNDATTONS OF MATHEMATTCS
Any one of these possibilities is allowable. What the implication forbids is

X is a man and X is not mortal.
Some of the postulates of the Principia are:
(a) Anything implied by a true elementary proposition is true.
(b) (PvP)=P.
(c) c = Qv d.
(d) (r'v q) > kv p).
(") [Pv (c v r)) = lq v (p v r)].
(f) The assertion of p and. the assertion p = q permits the assertion of q.
The independence of these postulates and their consistency cannot be

proved because tlte usual methods do not apply. From these postulates the
authors proceed to deduce theorems of logic and ultimately arithmetic and
analysis. The usual syllogistic rules of Aristotle occur as theorems.
To illustrate how even logic itself has been formalized and made deduc-
tive, let us note a few theorems of the early part of Principia Mathematica:
2.01. (p> -p)) -p.
This is the principle of redutio ad ahsardum. In words, if the assumption
of p implies that p is false, then p is false.
2.05. lq=r)= [Q= d ) @)r)).
This is one form of the syllogism. In words, if g implies r, then if p
implies g, p implies r.
2.11. pv-p.
This is the principle of excluded middle: p is true or y' is false.
2.t2.
In words,p implies that
"i;;r:i'
2.16. Q=d=Qq=-p).
Ifp implies q, then not-q implies not-p.
Propositions are a step to propositional functions that treat sets by means
of properties ratler than by naming the objects in a set. Thus the proposi-
tional function "r is red" denotes the set of all red objects.
If the members of a set are individual objects, then the propositional
functions applying to such members are said to be of type 0. If the members
of a set are themselves propositional functions, any propositional function
applying to such members is said to be of type l. And generally propositional
functions whose variables are of types less than and equal to z are of type
n*1.
THE LOGISTIC SCHOOL I I95
The theory of types seeks to avoid the paradoxes, which arise because a
collection of objects contains a member that itself can be defined only in
terms of the collection. The resolution by Russell and Whitehead of this
difficulty was to require that " whatever involves all members of a collection
must not itself be a member ol the collection'" To carry out this restriction
in the Principia, they specify that a (logical) function cannot have as one of
its arguments anything defined in terms of the function itself. They then
discuss the paradoxes and show that the theory ol types avoids them.
However, the theory of types leads to classes of statements that must
be carelully distinguished by type. If one attempts to build mathematics in
accordance with the theory of types, the development becomes exceedingly
complex. For example, in the Principia two objects a and b are equal if for
every property P(x), P(a) and P(b) are equivalent propositions (each implies
the other). According to the theory of types, P may be of diflerent types
because it may contain variables of various orders as well as the individual
objects a or D, and so the definition of equality must aPPly for all types of P;
in other words, there is an infinity of relations of equality, one for each type
of property. Likewise, an irrational number defined by the Dedekind cut
proves to be ofhigher type than a rational number, which in turn is ofhigher
type than a natural number, and so the continuum consists of numbers of
different types. To escape this complexity, Russell and Whitehead introduced
the axiom of reducibility, which affirms the existence, for each propositional
function of whatever type, ol an equivalent propositional function of type
zeto.
Having treated propositional functions, the authors take up the theory
of classes. A class, loosely stated, is the set of objects satisflying some proposi-
tional function. Relations are then expressed as classes of couples satisfying
propositional functions of two variables. Thus "xjudgesy" expresses a rela-
tion. On this basis the authors are prepared to introduce the notion of
cardinal number.
The definition of a cardinal number is of considerable interest. It
depends upon the previously introduced relation of one-to-one correspond-
ence between classes. If two classes are in one-to-one correspondence, they
are called similar. The relationship of similarity is proven to be reflexive,
symmetric, and transitive. All similar classes possess a common property,
and this is their number. However, similar classes may have more than one
common property. Russell and Whitehead get around this, as had Frege,
by defining the number of a class as the class of all classes that are similar
to the given class. Thus the number 3 is the class of all three-membered
classes and the denotation of all three-membered classes is lx, y, z| with
x + y + z. Since the definition of number Presupposes the concept of one-
to-one correspondence, it would seem as though the definition is circular.
The authors point out, however, that a relation is one-to-one if, when *
r r96 THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
and r'have the relation toy, then x and, x'are identical, and when x has the
relation to y and y' , then y and y' are identical. Hence the concept of one-to-
one correspondence does not involve the number l.
Given the cardinal or natural numbers, it is possible to build up the
real and complex number systems, functions, and in fact all of analysis.
Geometry can be introduced through numbers. Though the details in the
Prircipia differ somewhat, our own examination of the foundations of the
number system and of geometry (Chaps. 4l and 42) shows that such con-
structions are logically possible without additional axioms.
This, then, is the grand program of the logistic school. What it does
with logic itself is quite a story, which we are skimming over here briefly.
What it does for mathematics, and this we must emphasize, is to found
mathematics on logic. No axioms of mathematics are neededl mathematics
becomes no more than a natural extension of the laws and subject matter
of logic. But the postulates of logic and all their consequences are arbitrary
and, moreover, formal. That is, they have no content; they have merely
form. As a consequence, mathematics too has no.content, but merely form.
The physical meanings we attach to numbers or to geometric concePts are
not part of mathematics. It was with this in mind that Russell said that
mathematics is the subject in which we never know what we are talking
about nor whether what we are saying is true. Actually, when Russell
started this program in the early part ofthe century, he (and Frege) thought
the axioms of logic were truths. But he abandoned this view in the 1937
edition of the Principles of Mathematics.
The logistic approach has received much criticism. The axiom of
reducibility aroused opposition, for it is quite arbitrary. It has been called
a happy accident and not a logical necessity; it has been said that the axiom
has no place in mathematics, and that what cannot be proved without it
cannot be regarded as proved at all. Others called the axiom a sacrifice of
the intellect. Moreover, the system of Russell and Whitehead was gever
completed and is obscure in numerous details. Many efforts were made
later to simplify and clarify it.
Another serious philosophical criticism of the entire logistic position
is that if the logistic view is correct, then all of mathematics is a purely
formal, logico-deductive science whose theorems follow from the laws of
thought. Just how such a deductive elaboration of the laws of thought can
represent wide varieties of natural phenomena such as acoustics, electro-
magnetics, and mechanics seems unexplained. Further, in the creation of
mathematics perceptual or imaginative intuition must supply new concepts,
whether or not derived from experience. Otherwise, how could new knowledge
arise? But in the Principia all concepts reduce to logical ones.
The formalization of the logistic program apparently does not represent
mathematics in any real sense. It presents us with the husk, not the kernel.
THE INTIIITIONIST SCIIOOL I I97
Poincar6 said, snidely (Foundations oJ Science, p. 483), "The logistic theory is

not sterile; it engenders contradictions. " This is not true if one accepts the
theory of types, but this ttreory, as noted, is artificial. Weyl also attacked
logicism; he said that this complex structure " taxes the strength of our
faith hardly less than the doctrines of the early Fathers of the Church or of
the Scholastic philosophers of the Middle Ages."
Despite the criticisms, the logistic philosophy is accepted by many
mathematicians. The Russell-Whitehead construction also made a contri-
bution in another direction. It carried out a thorough axiomatization of
logic in entirely symbolic form and so advanced enormously the subject of
mathematical logic.
6. Th{ Innitionist School

A radically different approach to mathematics has been undertaken by a
group of mathematicians called intuitionists. As in the case of logicism, the
intuitionist philosophy was inaugurated during the late nineteenth century
when the rigorization of the number system and geometry was a major
activity. The discovery of the paradoxes stimulated its further development.
The first intuitionist was Kronecker, who expressed his views in the
1870s and BOs. To Kronecker, Weierstrass's rigor involved unacceptable
concepts, and Cantor's work on transfinite numbers and set theory was not
mathematics but mysticism. Kronecker was willing to accePt the whole
numbers because these are clear to the intuition. These " were the work
of God." All else was the work of man and suspect. In his essay of 1887,
"Uber den Zahlbegriff" (On the Number Concept),12 he showed how some
types of numbers, fractions for example, could be defined in terms of the
whole numbers. Fractional numbers as such were acceptable as a con-
venience ol notation. The theory of irrational numbers and of continuous
functions he wished to strip away. His ideal was that every theorem ol
analysis should be interpretable as giving relations among the integers only.
Another objection Kronecker made to many parts of mathematics was
that they did not give constructive methods or criteria for determining in a
finite number of steps the objects with which they dealt. Definitions should
contain the means of calculating the object defined in a finite number of
steps, and existence proofs should permit the calculation to any required
degree of accuracy of the quantity whose existence is being established.
Algebraists were content to say that a polynomial;f(,t) may have a rational
factor, in which case;f(x) is reducible. In the contrary case it is irreducible.
ln his Festschrift " Grundziige einer arithmetischen Theorie der algebraischen
Grossen " (Elements of an Arithmetic Theory of Algebraic Quantities) 13
12. Jour. far Math., l0l, 1887, 337-55: Werlz,3,25l-7+.

:
13. Jour..far Math., 92, 1882, l-122 Werlz, 2,237-387.
r rgB THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
Kronecker said, "The definition ofreducibility is devoid ofa sure foundation

tntrl a method is given by means of which it can be decided whether a given
function is irreducible or not."
Again, though the several theories of the irrational numbers give
definitions as to when two real numbers a and b are equal or when a > D
or b > a, they do not give criteria to determine which alternative holds
in a given case. Hence Kronecker objected to such definitions. They are
definitions only in appearance. The entire theory of irrationals was unsatis-
factory to him and one day he said to Lindemann, who had proved that z
is a transcendental irrational, "Of what use is your beautiful investigation
regarding ? Why study such problems, since irrational numbers are
zr
non-o<istent " ?
Kronecker himself did little to develop the intuitionist philosophy

except to criticize the absence of constructive procedures for determining
quantities whose existence was merely established. He tried to rebuild
algebra but made no efforts to reconstruct analysis. Kronecker produced
fine work in arithmetic and algebra which did not conform to his own
requirements because, as Poincar6 remarked,la he temporarily forgot his own
philosophy.
Kronecker had no supporters of his philosophy in his day and for
almost twenty-five years no one pursued his ideas. However, after the
paradoxes were discovered, intuitionism was revived and became a wide-
spread and serious movement. The next strong advocate was Poincard. His
opposition to set theory because it gave rise to paradoxes has already been
noted. Nor would he accept the logistic program for rescuing mathematics.
He ridiculed attempts to base mathematics on logic on the ground that
mathematics would reduce to an immense tautology. He also mocked the
(to him) highly artificial derivation of number. Thus in the Principia 1 is de-
fined as 6{3x.c : i'x}. Poincard said sarcastically that this was an admir-
able definition to give to people who never heard of the number l.
In Scicnre and Method (Foundations of Scienee, p. 480) he stated,
Logistic has to be made over, and one is none too sure of what can be
saved. It is unnecessary to add that only Cantorism and Logistic are
meant; true mathematics, that which ...t ,o#. useful purpose, may
".
continue to develop according to its own principles without paying any
attention to the tempests raging without, and it will pursue step by step
its accustomed conquests which are definitive and which it will never
need to abandon.
Poincar€ objected to concepts that cannot be defined in a finite number

of words. Thus a set chosen in accordance with the axiom of choice is not
really defined when a choice has to be made from each of a transfi.nite num-
14. Acta Math,,22, 1899, 17.
THE INTUITIONIIIT SCIIOOL I I99
ber of sets. He also contended that arithmetic cannot be justified by an

axiomatic foundation. Our intuition precedes such a structure' In particular,
mathematical induction is a fundamental intuition and not just an axiom
that happens to be useful in some system ol axioms' Like Kronecker, he
insisted that all definitions and proof should be constructive'
He agreed with Russell that the source olthe paradoxes was the defini-
tion ol collections or sets that included the object defined. Thus the set I of
all sets contains A. But A cannot be defined until each member of I is defined,
and it A is one member the definition is circular. Another example of an
impredicative definition is the definition of the maximum value of a con-
tinuous function defined over a closed interval as the largest value that the
function takes on in lhis interval. Such definitions were common in analysis
and especially in the theory of sets.
Further criticisms of the current logical state of mathematics were
developed and discussed in an exchange of letters among Borel, Baire,
Hadamard, and Lebesgue.ls Borel supported Poincar6's assertion that the
integers cannot be founded axiomatically. He too criticized the axiom of
choice because it calls for a nondenumerable infinity of choices, which is
inconceivable to the intuition. Hadamard and Lebesgue went further and
said that even a denumerable infinity of arbitrary successive choices is not
more intuitive because it calls for an infinity of operations, which it is impos-
sible to conceive as being effectively realized. For Lebesgue the difficulties all
reduced to knowing what one means when one says that a mathematical
object exists. In the case of the axiom of choice he argued that if one merely
" ihirkr " of a way of choosing, may one then not change his choices in the
course ofhis reasoning ? Even the choice ofa single object in one set, Lebesgue
maintained, raises the same difficulties. One must know the object "exists"
which means that one must name the choice explicitly' Thus Lebesgue
rejected Cantor's proof of the existence of transcendental numbers' Hada-
mard pointed out that Lebesgue's objections led to a denial of the existence
ofthe set of all real numbers, and Borel drew exactly the same conclusion'
All of the above objections by intuitionists were sporadic and frag-
mented. The systematic founder of modern intuitionism is Brouwer' Like
Kronecker, much of his mathematical work, notably in toPology, was not in
accord with his philosophy, but there is no question as to the seriousness of
his position. commencing with his doctoral dissertation, on the Foundations
of Mathematics ( 1907), Brouwer began to build up the intuitionist philosophy'
From 19lB on he expanded and expounded his views in papers in various
journals, including the Matlumatische Annalen of 1925 and 1926'
Brouwer's intuitionist position stems from a broader philosophy' The
fundamental intuition, according to Brouwer, is the occurrence of percep-
tions in a time sequence. " Mathematics arises when the subject of twoness,
15. See note 9.
I2()0 THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATIIEMATICS
which results from the passage o[ time, is abstracted from all special occur-
rences. The remaining empty form [the relation of n to n * l] of the common
content of all these twonesses becomes the original intuition of mathematics
and repeated unlimitedly creates new mathematical subjects." Thus by
unlimited repetition the mind lorms the concept ol the successive natural
numbers. This idea that the whole numbers derive from the intuition of time
had been maintained by Kant, William R. Hamilton in his "Algebra as a
Science of Time," and the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.
Brouwer conceives of mathematical thinking as a process of construction
that builds its own universe, independent of the universe of our experience
and somewhat as a free design, restricted only in so far as it is based upon the
fundamental mathematical intuition. This fundamental intuitive concept
must not be thought ofas an undefined idea, such as occurs in postulational
theories, but rather as something in terms oJ which all undefined ideas that
occur in the various mathematical systems are to be intuitively conceived, if
they are indeed to serve in mathematical thinking'
Brouwer holds that "in this constructive process' bound by the obliga-
tion to notice with care which theses are acceptable to the intuition and
which are not, lies the only possible loundation for mathematics." Mathe-
matical ideas are imbedded in the human mind' prior to language, logic, and
czpaience, The intuition, not experience or logic, determines the soundness
and acceptability of ideas. It must of course be remembered that these
statements concerning the role of experience are to be taken in the philo-
sophical sense, not the historical sense.
The mathematical objects are for Brouwer acquired by intellectual
construction, wherein the basic numbers l, 2, 3, . . . furnish the Prototype
of such a construction. The possibility of the unlimited repetition of the
empty form, the steP from z to z * I , leads to infinite sets. However,
Brouwer's infinite is the potential infinity of Aristotle, whereas modern
mathematics, as founded for example by Cantor, makes extensive use of
actually infinite sets whose elements are all prdsent "at once."
In connection with the intuitionist notion of infinite sets, Weyl, who
belonged to the intuitionist school, says that
. . . the sequence of numbers which grows beyond any stage already

reached. . . is a manifold of possibilities opening to infinity; it remains
forever in the status of creation, but is not a closed realm of things
existing in themselves. That we blindly converted one into the other is the
true source of our difficulties, including the antinomies-a source of more
fundamental nature than Russell's vicious circle principle indicated.
Brouwer opened our eyes and made us see how far classical mathematics,
nourished by a belief in the absolute that transcends all human pos-
sibilities of realization, goes beyond such statements as can claim real
meaning and truth founded on evidence.
T}IE INTUITIONIST SCHOOL I20I
The world of mathematical intuition is opposed to the world of causal
perceptions. In this causal world, not in mathematics, belongs language,
which serves there for the understanding of common dealings. Words or
verbal connections are used to communicate truths. Language serves to
evoke copies of ideas in men's minds by symbols and sounds. But thoughts
can never be completely symbolized. These remarks apply also to mathe-
matical language, including symbolic language. Mathematical ideas are
independent of the dress of language and in fact far richer.
Logic belongs to language. It offers a system of rules that permit the
deduction of further verbal connections and also are intended to com-
municate truths. However, these latter truths are not such before they are
experienced, nor is it guaranteed that they can be experienced. Logic is not a
reliable instrument to uncover truths and can deduce no truths that are not
obtainablejust as well in some other way. Logical principles are the regularity
observed a posteriori in therlanguage. They are a device for manipulating
language, or they are the theory of representation of language. The most
important advances in mathematics are not obtained by perfecting the
logical form but by modifying the basic theory itself. Logic rests on mathe-
matics, not mathematics on logic.
Since Brouwer does not recognize any a priori obligatory logical
principles, he does not recognize the mathematical task of deducing con-
clusions from axioms. Mathematics is not bound to respect the rules of logic,
and for this reason the paradoxes are unimportant even if we were to accept
the mathematical concepts and constructions the paradoxes involve. Of
course, as we shall see, the intuitionists do not accept all these concepts and
proofs.
Weyl16 expands on the role of logic:
According to his [Brouwer's] view and reading of history, classical logic
was abstracted from the mathematics of finite sets and their subsets. . . .
Forgetful of this limited origin, one afterwards mistook that logic for
something above and prior to all mathematics, and finally applied it,
without justification, to the mathematics of infinite sets. This is the Fall
and original sin of set theory, for which it is justly punished by the
antinomies. It is not that such contradictions showed up that is surprising,
but that they showed up at such a late stage ofthe game.
In the realm of logic there are some clear, intuititelg acceptable logical
principles or procedures that can be used to assert new theorems from old
ones, These principles are part of the fundamental mathematical intuition.
However, not all logical principles are acceptable to the basic intuition and
one must be critical of what has been sanctioned since the days of Aristotle.
Because mathematicians have applied freely these Aristotelian laws, they
16. Amer. Math. Monthlq,53, 1946, 2-13 = Ces, Abh., 4, 26U79.

r202 THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATIIEMATICS
have produced antinomies. The intuitionists therefore proceed to analyze

which logical principles are allowable in order that the usual logic conform
to and properly express the correct intuitions.
As a specific example of a logical principle that is applied too freely,
Brouwer cites the law of excluded middle. This principle, which asserts that
every meaningful statement is true or false, is basic to the indirect method of
proof. It arose historically in the application of reasoning to subsets of finite
sets and was abstracted therefrom. It was then accepted as an independent
a priori principle and was unjustifiably applied to infinite sets. Whereas for
finite sets one can decide whether all elements possess a certain property P
by testing each one, this procedure is no longer possible for infinite sets. One
may happen to know that an element of the infinite set does not possess the
property or it may be that by the very construction ofthe set we know or can
prove that every element has the property. In any case, one cannot use the
law of excluded middle to Prove the property holds.
Hence if one proves that not all elements of an infinite set possess a
property, then the conclusion that there exists at least one element which
d*. .rot have the property is rejected by Brouwer. Thus from the denial that
ab : bo holds for all numbers the intuitionists do not conclude that there
exists an aandb for which ab + b". Consequently many existence proofs are
not accepted by the intuitionists. The law of excluded middle can be used
in cases where the conclusion can be reached in a finite number of steps, for
example, to decide the question of whether a book contains misprints' In
other cases the intuitionists deny the possibility of a decision.
The denial of the law of excluded middle gives rise to a new possibility,
undecidable propositions. The intuitionists maintain, with respect to infnite
sets, that there is a third state of affairs, namely, there may be propositions
which are neither provable nor unprovable. As an example of such a
proposition, let us define the ftth position in the decimal expansion of z' to
be the position of the first zero which is followed by the integers 1"'9'
Aristotelian logic says that /r either exists or does not exist and mathe-
maticians following Aristotle may then proceed to argue on the basis of these
two possibilities. Brouwer would reject all such arguments, for we do not
know whether we shall ever be able to prove that it does or does not exist.
Hence all reasoning about the number * is rejected by the intuitionists. Thus
there are sensible mathematical questions which may never be settled on the
basis of the statements contained in the axioms of mathematics' The ques-
tions seem to us to be decidable but actually our basis for expecting that they
must be decidable is really nothing more than that they involve mathe-
matical concepts.
With respect to the concePts they will accePt as legitimate for mathe-
matical discussion, the intuitionists insist on constructive definitions. For
Brouwer, as for all intuitionists, the infinite exists in the sense that one can
always find a finite set larger than the given one. To discuss any other type
THE FORMALIST SCHOOL r2o3
of infinite, the intuitionists demand that one give a method ol constructing

or defining this infinite in a finite number of steps. Thus Brouwer rejects the
aggregates of set theory.
The requiremerrt of constructibility is another ground for excluding any
concept whose existence is established by indirect reasoning, that is, by the
argument that the nonexistence leads to a contradiction. Aside from the fact
that the existence proof may use the objectionable law of excluded middle,
to the intuitionists this proof is not satisfactory because they want a con-
structive definition of the object whose existence is being established. The
constructive definition must permit determination to any desired accuracy in
a finite number of steps. Euclid's proof of the existence of an infinite number
of primes (Chap. 4, sec. 7) is nonconstructive; it does not afford the deter-
mination of the nth prime. Hence it is not acceptable. Further, if one proved
merely the existence of integers x, y, z, and z satisfying xn + yn : za, lhe
intuitionist would not accePt the proof. On the other hand, the definition
of a prime number is constructive, for it can be applied to determine in a
finite number of steps whether a number is prime. The insistence on a
constructive definition applies especially to infnite sets. A set constructed
by the axiom of choice apPlied to infinitely many sets would not be accept-
able.
Weyl said of nonconstructive existence proofs (Philosophy of Matlumatics
and Natural Scimce, p.5l) that they inform the world that a treasure exists
without disclosing its location. Proof through postulation cannot replace
construction without loss of significance and value. He also pointed out that
adherence to the intuitionist philosophy means the abandonment of tlre
existence theorems of classical analysis-for example, the Weierstrass-
Bolzano theorem. A bounded monotonic set of real numbers does not
necessarily have a limit. For the intuitionists, if a function of a real variable
exists in their sense then it is ipso facta continuous. Transfinite induction and
its applications to analysis and most of the theory o[ Cantor are condemned
outright. Analysis, Weyl says, is built on sand.
Brouwer and his school have not limited themselves to criticism but
have sought to build up a new mathematics on the basis of constructions
they accept. They have succeeded in saving the calculus with its limit
processes, but their construction is very complicated. They also reconstructed
elementary portions of algebra and geometry' Unlike Kronecker, Weyl and
Brouwer do allow some kinds of irrational numbers. Clearly the mathematics
of the intuitionists differs radically from what mathematicians had almost
universally accepted before 1900.
7 - The Formalist School

The third of the principal philosophies of mathematics is known as the
formalist school and its leader was Hilbert' He began work on this philosophy
t204 THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
in 1904. FIis motives at that time were to provide a basis for the number
system without using the theory of sets and to establish the consistency ol
arithmetic. Since his own proofolthe consistency of geometry reduced to the
consistency of arithmetic, the consistency of the latter was a vital open
question. He also sought to combat Kronecker's contention that the irra-
tionals must be thrown out. Hilbert accepted the actual infinite and praised
Cantor's work (Chap. 41, sec. 9). He wished to keep the infinite, the pure
existence proofs, and concepts such as the least upper bound whose definition
appeared to be circular.
Hilbert presented one paper on his views at the International Congress
of 1904.1? He did no more on this subject for fifteen years; then, moved by
the desire to answer the intuitionists' criticisms of classical analysis, he took
up problems of the foundations and continued to work on them for the rest
of his scientific career. He published several key papers during the nineteen-
twenties. Gradually a number of men took up his views.
Their mature philosophy contains many doctrines. In keeping with the
new trend that any foundation lor mathematics must take cognizance olthe
role of logic, the formalists maintain that logic must be treated simultane-
ously with mathematics. Mathematics consists of several branches and each
branch is to have its own axiomatic foundation. This must consist ol logical
and mathematical concepts and principles. Logic is a sign language that puts
mathematical statements into formulas and expresses reasoning by formal
processes. The axioms merely express the rules by which formulas follow
from one another. All signs and symbols of operation are lreed from their
significance with respect to content. Thus all meaning is eliminated from the
mathematical symbols. In his 1926 paper 18 Hilbert says the objects of
mathematical thought are the symbols themselves. The symbols are the
essence; they no longer stand for idealized physical objects. The formulas
may imply intuitively meaningful statements, but these implications are not
part of mathematics.
Hilbert retained the law of excluded middle because analysis depends
upon it. He said,le " Forbidding a mathematician to make use of the prin-
ciple of excluded middle is like forbidding an astronomer his telescope or a
boxer the use of his fists." Because mathematics deals only with symbolic
expressions, all the rules of Aristotelian logic can be applied to these formal
expressions. In this new sense the mathematics of infinite sets is possible.
Also, by avoiding the explicit use of the word "all," Hilbert hoped to avoid
the paradoxes.
To formulate the logical axioms Hilbert introduced symbolism for
17. Proc. Third Inlcrnat. Congress oJ Math., Heidelberg, 1904, l7'[-85 : Grundlagen der Geom.,
7th ed.,247-61; English trans. in Monist, 15, 1905, 338-52.
18. Math. Ann.,95, 1926, l6l -90 : Grundlagen der Geometrie,7th ed.,262-88. See note 20.
19. Weyt, Amer. Math. Soc. Bull.,50, 1944,637 : Ces. Abh., +, 157.
I2o5
concepts and relations such as "and," "or," " negation," "there exists,"
and the like. Luckily the logical calculus (symbolic logic) had already been
developed (for other purposes) and so, Hilbert says, he has at hand what he
needs. All the above symbols are the building blocks lor the ideal expressions
formulas.
-theTo handle the infinite, Hilbert uses, aside from ordinary noncontrover-
sial axioms, the transfinite axiom
A(rA) --> A(a).
This, he says, means: If a predicate I applies to the fiducial object rl, it

applies to all objects a. Thus suppose I stands for being corruptible. If
Aristides the Just is fiducial and corruptible, then everybody is corruptible.
Mathematical proof will consist of this process: the assertion of some
formula; the assertion that this formula implies another; the assertion of the
second formula. A sequence of such steps in which the asserted formulas or
the implications are preceding axioms or conclusions will constitute the proof
of a theorem. Also, substitution ol one symbol for another or a group of
symbols is a permissible operation. Thus formulas are derived by applying
the rules lor manipulating the symbols of previously established formulas.
A proposition is true if and only if it can be obtained as the last of a
sequence ofpropositions such that every proposition ofthe sequence is either
an axiom in the formal system or is itself derived by one of the rules of
deduction. Everyone can check as to whether a given proposition has been
obtained by a proper sequence of propositions. Thus under the formalist
view truth and rigor are well defined and objective.
To the formalist, then, mathematics proper is a collection of formal
systems, each building its own logic along with its mathematics, each having
its own concepts, its own axioms, its own rules for deducing theorems such as
rules about equality or substitution, and its own theorems. The development
of each of these deductive systems is the task of mathematics. Mathematics
becomes not a subject about something, but a collection of formal systems, in
each of which formal expressions are obtained from others by formal trans-
formations. So much for the part of Hilbert's program that deals with
mathematics proper.
However, we must now ask whether the deductions are free of contra-
dictions. This cannot necessarily be observed intuitively. But to show non-
contradiction, all we need to show is that one can never arrive at the formal
statement I : 2. (Since by a theorem of logic any other false proposition
implies this proposition, we may confine ourselves to this one.)
Hilbert and his students Wilhelm Ackermann ( 1896-1962), Paul
Bernays (IBBB-), and von Neumann gradually evolved, during the years
1920 to 1930, what is known as Hilbert's Beueistheorie [proof theory] or meta-
r2d THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMAfiCS
mathematics, a method of establishing the consistency of any formal system.

In metamathematics Hilbert proPosed to use a special logic that was to be
basic and free of all objections. It employs concrete and finite reasoning ofa
kind univertally admitted and very close to the intuitionist principles'
Controversial principles such as proof of existence by contradiction' trans-
finite induction, and the axiom of choice are not used. Existence proofs must
be constructive. Since a formal system can be unending, metamathematics
must entertain concepts and questions involving at least potentially infinite
systems. However, only finitary methods of proof should be used. There
should be no reference either to an infinite number ofstructural properties of
formulas or to an infinite number of manipulations of formulas.
Now the consistency of a major part of classical mathematics can be
reduced to that of the arithmetic of the natural numbers (number theory)
much as this theory is embodied in the Peano axioms, or to a theory of sets
sufficiently rich to yield Peano's axioms. Hence the consistency of the
arithmetic of the natural numbers became the center of attention'
Hilbert and his school did demonstrate the consistency of simple formal
systerns and they believed they were about to realize the goal of proving the
consistency of aiithmetic and of the theory of sets. In his article " Uber das
Uncndliche " 20 he says,
In geometry and physical theory the proof of consistency is accomplished
by reducing it to the consistency of arithmetic. This method obviously
fails in the proof for arithmetic itself. Since our proof theory . . ' makes
this last step possible, it constitutes the necessary keystone in the structure
of mathematics. And in particular what we have twice experienced, first
in the paradoxes ofthe calculus and then in the paradoxes ofset theory,
cannot happen again in the domain of mathematics.
But then Kurt G<idel ( 1906-) entered the picture. Gddel's first major
paper was " Uber formal unentscheid[are Sitze der Principia Mathematita
und verwandter Systeme I."21 Here G<idel showed that the consistency of a
system embracing the usual logic and number theory cannot be established
if one limits himself to such concePts and methods as can formally be
represented in the system of number theory. what this means in effect is that
the consistency of number theory cannot be established by the narrow logic
permissible in metamathematics. APropos of this result, Weyl said that God
exists since mathematics is consistent and the devil exists since we cannot
prove the consistency.
The above result of Gddel's is a corollary of his more startling result'
20. Math, Ann.,95, 1926, l6l-90 :

Grundlagu der Geometrie, Tth ed., 262-88' An English
translation can be found in Paul Benacerrafand Hilary Putnam: Philosoplry of Mathenatics,
1 3,[- 18 1, Prentice-Hall, 1964.
21. MonatshzJu fiir Mathemat* und Phgsik,38, 1931, 173-98; see the bibliography.
THE FORMALIST SCHOOL r2o7
The major result (G6del's incompleteness theorem) states that if any formal
theory 7 adequate to embrace number theory is consistent and if the axioms
of the formal system of arithmetic are axioms or theorems of 7, then 7" is
incomplete. That is, there is a statement S olnumber theory such that neither
S nor not-S is a theorem ofthe theory. Now either S or not-S is true; there is,
then, a true statement of number theory which is not provable. This result
applies to the Russell-Whitehead system, the Zermelo-Fraenkel system, and
Hilbert's axiomatization of number theory. It is somewhat ironic that Hilbert
in his address at the International Congress in Bologna ol 1928 (see note 22)
had criticized the older proofs ofcompleteness through categoricalness (Chap'
42, sec. 3) but was very confident that his own system was complete. Actually
the older proofs involving systems containing the natural numbers were
accepted as valid only because set theory had not been axiomatized but was
used on a naive basis.
Incompleteness is a blemish in that the formal system is not adequate
to prove all the assertions frameable in the system. To add insult to injury,
there are assertions that are undecidable but are intuitively true in the
system. Incompleteness cannot be remedied by adjoining S or - S as an
axiom, for Godel proved that any system embracing number theory must
contain an undecidable proposition. Thus while Brouwer made clear that
what is intuitively certain falls short ol what is mathematically proved,
G6del showed that the intuitively certain goes beyond mathematical proof'
One of the implications of Gcidel's theorem is that no system of axioms
is adequate to encompass, not only all of mathematics, but even any one
significant branch of mathematics, because any such axiom system is
incomplete. There exist statements whose concepts belong to the system'
which cannot be proved within the system but can nevertheless be shown to
be true by nonformal arguments, in fact by the logic of metamathematics'
This implication, that there are limitations on what can be achieved .by
axiomatization, contrasts sharply with the late nineteenth-century view that
mathematics is coextensive with the collection of axiomatized branches'
Godel's result dealt a death blow to comprehensive axiomatization. This
inadequacy of the axiomatic method is not in itsell a contradiction, but it
was surprising, because mathematicians had expected that any true state-
ment could certainly be established within the framework of some axiomatic
system. Of course the above arguments do not exclude the possibility of new
methods of proof that would go beyond what Hilbert's metamathematics
permit.
Hilbert was not convinced that these blows destroyed his program' He
argued that even though one might have to use concepts outside a formal
system, they might still be finite and intuitively concrete and so acceptable'
Hilbert was an optimist. He had unbounded confidence in the power of
man's reasoning and understanding. At the talk he gave at the l92B
r 2()8 THE FOUNDATIONS Otr' MATHEMATICS
International Congress22 he had asserted, ". . . to the mathematical under-

standing there are no bounds . . . in mathematics there is no Ignorabimus
[we shall not know] ; rather we can always answer meaningful questions
. . . our reason does not possess any secret art but proceeds by quite definite
and statable rules which are the guarantee of the absolute objectivity of its
judgment." Every mathematician, he said, shares the conviction that each
definite mathematical problem must be capable of being solved. This
optimism gave him courage and strength, but it barred him from under-
standing that there could be undecidable mathematical problems.
The formalist program, successful or not, was unacceptable to the
intuitionists. In 1925 Brouwer blasted away at the formalists.23 Of course, he
said, axiomatic, formalistic treatments will avoid contradictions, but nothing
of mathematical value will be obtained in this way. A false theory is none the
less false even if not halted by a contradiction, just as a criminal act is
criminal whether or not forbidden by a court. Sarcastically he also remarked,
"To the question, where shall mathematical rigor be found, the two parties
give different answers. The intuitionist says, in the human intellect; the
formalist says, on paper." Weyl too attacked Hilbert's program. " Hilbert's
mathematics may be a pretty game with formulas, more amusing even than
chess; but what bearing does it have on cognition, since its formulas admit-
tedly have no material meaning by virtue of which they could express
intuitive truths." In defense of the formalist philosophy, one must point out
that it is only for the purposes of proving consistency, completeness, and
other properties that mathematics is reduced to meaningless formulas. As for
mathematics as a whole, even the formalists reject the idea that it is simply a
game; they regard it as an objective science.
Hilbert in turn charged Brouwer and Weyl with trying to throw over-
board everything that did not suit them and dictatorially promulgating an
embargo.2a He called intuitionism a treason to science. (Yet in his meta-
mathematics he limited himself to intuitively clear logical principles.)
8. Some Recent Deuelopments

None of the proposed solutions of the basic problems olthe foundations-the
axiomatization of set theory, logicism, intuitionism, or formalism-achieved
the objective ofproviding a universally acceptable approach to mathematics.
Developments since G6del's work of 1931 have not essentially altered the
picture. However, a few movements and results are worth noting. A number
22. Atti Del Congresso lnternazionale Dei Matematici,l, l35-41 : Grundlagen der Geometri.e, Tth
ed.,313-23.
23. Jour. fiir Math., 154, 1925, l.
24. Abh. Math- Seminar der Hamburger Llnitt., |, 1922. 157-77 : Ges. Abh., 3, 157-77 .
r 2og
of men have erected compromise approaches to mathematics that utilize

features of twb basic schools. Others, notably Gerhard Gentzen (1909-45),
a member of Hilbert's school, have loosened the restrictions on the methods
of proof allowed in Hilbert's metamathematics and, for example, by using
transfinite induction (induction over the transfinite numbers), have thereby
managed to establish the consistency of number theory and restricted
portions of analysis.2s
Among other significant results, two are especially worth noting. In
The Consistency of the Axiom of Choice and of the Generalized Continuwn Hgpothesis
uith the Axioms of Set Theory (1940, rev. ed., l95l), G<idel proved that if the
Zermelo-Fraenkel system of axioms without the axiom of choice is consistent,
then the system obtained by adjoining this axiom is consistent I that is, the
axiom cannot be disproved. Likewise the continuum hypothesis that there is
no cardinal number between Ns and 2ro, is consistent with the Zermelo-
Fraenkel system (without the axiom of choice). In 1963 Paul J. Cohen
( 1934-), a professor of mathematics at Stanford University, proved
28 that
the latter two axioms are independent of the Zermelo-Fraenkel system; that
is, they cannot be proved on the basis of that system. Moreover, even if one
retained the axiom ofchoice in the Zermelo-Fraenkel system, the continuum
hypothesis could not be proved. These results imply that we are free to
construct new systems of mathematics in which either or both of the two
controversial axioms are denied.
All of the developments since 1930 leave open two major problems: to
prove the consistency of unrestricted classical analysis and set theory, and
to build mathematics on a strictly intuitionistic basis or to determine tle
limits of this approach. The source of the difficulties in both of these problems
is infinity as used in infinite sets and infinite processes. This concept, which
created problems even for the Greeks in connection with irrational numbers
and which they evaded in the method of exhaustion, has been a subject of
contention ever since and prompted Weyl to remark that mathematics is the
science of infinity.
The question as to the proper logical basis for mathematics and the rise
particularly of intuitionism suggest that, in a larger sense, mathematics has
come full circle. The subject started on an intuitive and empirical basis.
Rigor became a goal with the Greeks, and though more honored in the
breach until the nineteenth century, it seemed for a moment to be achieved.
But the efforts to pursue rigor to the utmost have led to an impasse in which
there is no longer any agreement on what it really means. Mathematics
remains alive and vital, but only on a pragmatic basis.
There are some who see hope for resolution of the present impasse. The
French group of mathematicians who write under the pseudonym of Nicolas
25. Math. Ann., ll2, 1936, 493-565.
26. Proceedhgs oJ the National Academy oJ Scbncx,50, 1963, 1143-481'51' 1964, 105-10,
I2IO THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
Bourbaki, offer this encouragement: 27 " There are now twenty-five centuries
during which the mathematicians have had the practice of correcting their
errors and thereby seeing their science enriched, not impoverished; this gives
them the right to view the future with serenity."
Whether or not the optimism is warranted, the presegrt state of mathe-
matics has been aptly described by Weyl : 28 " The question of the ultimate
foundations and the ultimate meaning of mathematics remains open; we do
not know in what direction it will find its final solution or even whether a
final objective answer can be expected at all. 'Mathematizing' may well be
a creative activity of man, like language or music, of primary originality,
whoe€ historical decisions defy complete objective rationalization. "
Bibliography
Bcclrer, Oskar: Cnmdlagen dcr Matlumati* in geschirhtlirlur Entwicklung, Verlag Karl
Alber, 1956, 317--401.
B€th, E. W.z Mailunatical Thought: An Introduction to thc Philosophy of Mathematics,
Gordon and Breach, 1965.
Bochcnsli, I. M.: A History oJ Formal loglc, University of Notre Dame Press, 1962;
Boole, George: An Intcstigation of thc Laus of Thought (1854), Dover (reprint), 1951.
Tlu Matlumatital Analysis of Ingic (1847), Basil Blackwell (reprint), 1948.
Colhctcd Iagical Wo*s, Operr Court, 1952.
BourbaLi, N.: Elimcnts d'histoire des mathimatiqws, 2nd ed., Hermann, 1969, I l-64,
Brouwer, L. E. J. : " Intuitionism and Formalism," Amer. Math. Soe , Bull,, 20,
l9l3ll4, 8l-96. An English translation of Brouwer's inaugural address as
profcseor of mathematics at Amsterdam.
Church, Alonzo: "The Richard Paradox," Amer. Math. Monthly,4l, 1934,356-61.
Cohen, Paul J., and Reuben Hersh : " Non-Cantorian Set Theory," Scienlifu
Anwban, Dec. 1967, 10'[-16.
Couturat, L.: La Logiqu dc lzi.bniz d'apris des documents inidits, Alcan, 1901.
De Morgan, Augustus: On lhe Syllogism and Other Logical Witings, Yale University
Press, 1966. A collection of his papers edited by Peter Heath.
Dresden, Arnold: "Brouwer's Contribution to the Foundations of Mathematics,"
Ama. Math. Soc. Bull.,30, 1924,31-40.
Enriques, Federigo: The Historit Deoelopmmt of Logir, Henry Holt, 1929.
Fraenkel, A. A.: "The Recent Controversies About the Foundations of Mathe-
matics," Scripta Mathematira, 13, 1947, 17-36.
Fraenkel, A. A., and Y. Bar-Hillel: Foundatitns oJ Set Tluory, North-Holland, 1958.
Frege, Gottlob: Thc Foundations of Arithmetic, Blackwell, 1953, English and German;
also English translation only, Harper and Bros., 1960.
The Basi.c Laws of Arithmctir, University of California Press, 1965.
27. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 14, 1949,2-{,

28. Obituary Noticx of Fellows of the Rogal Soc., 4, 1944,547-53 = Gcs. Abh.,4, l2l-29,
p. 126 in part.
BIBLIOGRAPI{Y I2I I
Gerhardt, C. I., ed.: Die phitosophischen Schiften uon G. W.bibniz, 1875-80, Vol. 7.
Giidel, Kurt: On Formallg Undeeidablc Propositions qf Principia Mathematica czl
Related Systems, Basic Books, 1965.
" What Is Cantor's Continuum Problem ?," Amer. Math. Monthly, 54, 19+7,
sl s-25.
The Consistency of the Axiom of Choice and of tht Genetaliz2d Contiiluum Hyqothetis
with the Axioms o-f Set Theory, Princeton University Press, 1940; rev. ed., 1951'
Kneale, William and Martha: The Deuelopment of Logic, Oxford University Press,
r962.
I(neebone, G. T.: Mathematical Logic and the Foundations of Matlumatirs, D' Van
Nosrand, 1963. See the Appendix especially on developments since 1939'
Leibniz, G. W.: Iagbat Papcrs, edited and translated by G. A. R. Parkinson,
Oxford University Press, 1966.
Lewis, C. l.: A Suroey of Synbolic Logic, Dover (reprint), 1960' pp. l-117.
Meschkowski, Herbert: Probleme des tlnzndlichen, Werk und Itben Georg Cantors,
F. Vieweg und Sohn, 1967.
Mostowski, Andrzej: Thirty Ycars of Foundational Studdas, Barnes and Noble, 1966.
Nagel, E., and.f. R. Newman: Gddel's Proof, New York University Press, 1958.
Poincar6, Henri: The Foundations of Scicnce, Science Press, 1946, 44H5. This is a
reprint in one volume of Sciente and Hypothesis, The Valut oJ Scierce, and Scieme
and Melhod.
Rosser, J. Barkley: "An Informal Exposition of Proofs of Gtidel's Theorems and
Church's Theorem," Journal of Symbolic Logic,4, 1939, 53-60.
Russell, Bertrand: Tht Principles of Malhemalics, George Allen and Unwin, 1903;
2nd ed., 1937.
Scholz, Heinrich: Concise History of Logic, Philosophical Library, 1961.
Styazhkin, N. l.: History of Mathematical Logic from lzibniz to Paazo, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Press, 1969.
Van Heijenoort, Jean: From Frege to Giidel, Harvard University Press, 1967. Trans-
lations of key papers on Iogic and the foundations of mathematics.
Weyl, Hermann: " Mathematics and Logic," Amu. Math. Monthlg, 53, 1946,
2-13 : Gu. Abh., 4,26U79.
Phihsopfu of Mathemalics and Natural Schrce, Princeton University Press,
1949.
Wilder, R. L.: "The Role of the Axiomatic Method," Amet. Math. Monthlg,74,
1967, rtF27 .
Abbreviations
Journals whose titles have been written out in full in the text'are not listed here.
Abh. der Bayer. Akad. der l4zrss. Abhandlungen der Kdniglich Bayerischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften (Miinchen)
Abh. der Ges. der Wiss, zu Gdtt. Abhandlungen der Kiiniglichen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschalten zu Gottingen
Abh. Kdnig.tAkad. dtr Wiss,, Berlin Abhandhngen der Kdniglich Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin
Abh. Ki;niglich Bdhm. Ges. der Wiss. Abhandlungen der Kdniglichen Btihmischen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
Abh. Math. Seminar der Hamburger Uzda. Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen
Seminar Hamburgischen Universitiit
Acta Acad. Sci, Petrop, Acta Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae
Acta Erud. Acta Eruditorum
Acta Math. Acta Mathematica
Acta Soc. Fennicae Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae
Amer. Jour. of Malh, American Journal of Mathematics
Amer. Math. Monthlg American Mathematical Monthly
Amcr. Math- Soc. Bull. American Mathematical Society, Bulletin
Amer, Math. ,9oc. Trans. American Mathematical Society, Transactions
Ann. de l'Ecole Norm. ,Sup. Annales Scientifiques de l'Ecole Normale Sup6rieure
Ann. de Math. Annales de Math6matiques Pures et Appliqudes
Ann. Fac. Sci. de Toulouse Annales de la Facult6 des Sciences de Toulouse
Ann. Soc. Sci. Bruxelles Annales de la Soci6t6 Scientifique de Bruxelles
Annali di Mat. Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata
Annals of Math. Annals of Mathematics
Astronom. iy'acrl. Astronomische Nachrichten
Aui Accad. Torino Atti della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino
Aui della Accad. dei Lincei, Rendiconli Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Rendi-
conti
Brit. Assn. for Ada. o.f Sci. British Association for the Advancement of Science
Bull. des Sci. Math. Bulletin des Sciences Math6matiques
Bull. Soc, Math. de Ftance Brlletin de la Soci6t6 Mathdmatique de France
Cambridge and Dublin Math. Jour. Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal
Comm, Acad. Sci, Pelrop. Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae
,213
r2t4 ABBREVTATTONS
Comm. Soc. Gorr. Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis

Recentiores
Conp. R2nd. Comptes Rendus
Concsp. nn l| hoh Poly. Ciorrespondance sur l'Ecole Polytechnique
buyk. &r Math. Wiss. Encyklopiidie der Mathematischen Wissenschaften
Gim. di Mat. Giornale di Matematiche
Hist. de tAcd. de Bcrlin Histoire de l'Acad6mie Royale des Sciences et des Belles-
[rcttres de Berlin
Hist. dc l'Acad. &s Sci., Paris Histoire de I'Acad6mie Royale des Sciences avec les
Mdmoires de Mathdmatique et de Ph1'sique
Jatvcs. dcr Dcttt. Math.-Vacin. lahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereini-
Sung
Jou. th t Ecob Pofu. Journal de I'EcoIe Polytechnique
Jou, dc Math. Journal de Mathdmatiques Pures et Appliquces
Jotn. dcs Sgazazs Journal dcs Sgavans
Jow.Jw Math, Journal liir die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik'
Jow. Lon. Mart. Soc, Jorrnal of the London Mathematical Society
Kdniglbh Sdchsbclun Gcs. fur Wiss. zu Ltipzig Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen der
K6niglich Siichsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig
Math. Am. Mathematische Annalen
Min. d. l'Acd. th Bcrlin Sce Hist. d2 t Acad. de Berlin
Mim. fu PAcd. dzs,Sar., Pcrrs See Hisr. th l'Acad. &s Sci., Paris; after 1795, M6moires
de I'AcadCmie des Sciences de I'Institut de France
Mim, th I Acd. Sci. dc Sr. Palrrs. Mdmoires de l'Acad6mie Impdriale des Sciences de
Saint-Pctersbourg
Mim. dcs su. itrangcrs Mdmoires de Mathdmatique et de Physique PrCsentds ir
l'AcadCmie Royal des Sciences, par Divers Sgavans, et Lus dans ses Assem'
bl6cs
Mim, dfuas ,Sauczs See Min. fus sao. itrangcrs
Misc. Bcrolin, Miscellanea Berolinensia I also x Hist. dz I'Acad. de Berlin (q.tt.)
Misc. Taw, Miscellanea Philosophica-Mathematica Societatis Privatae Taurinen-
sis (published by Accademia delle Scienze di Torino)
Monakba. Baliur Akad. Monatsberichte der K6niglich Preussischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften zu Berlin
N.Y. Math. Soc. Bull. New York Mathematical Society, Bulletin
Nacbichten K6nig. Ges. tbr wiss. zu Gdtt. Nachrichten von der Kiiniglichen Gesell-
schaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen
Nou. Mim. fu l'Acad. Rog. des Sci., Bruxelles Nouveaux Mdmoires de l'AcadCmie
Royale des Sciences, des Lettres, et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique
Now. Ball, de la Soc. Plzila. Nouveau Bulletin de la SociCtd Philomatique de Paris
Now. Mim. dt l'Acatl. tle Berlin Nouveaux M6moires de l'Acad6mie Royale des
Sciences et des Belles-Lettres de Berlin
Nooa Acla Acatl. Sci. Petrop. Nova Acta Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae
Nooa Acta Erud. Nova Acta Eruditorum
Noai comm. acad. sci. Pctrop, Novi commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Petropoli-
tanae
Phil. Mag. The Philosophical Magazine
ABBREVIATIONS I2I5
Phih, Trans. Philosophical Transa-ctions of the Royal Society of London
Proc, Camb. Phil. Soc. Cambridge Philosophical Society, Proceedings
Proc, Edinburgh Math. Soc. Edinburgh Mathematical Society, Proceedings
Proc. I-ondon Math. Soc. Proceedings of the London
Mathematical Society
Proc, Roy.,Soc. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London
Proc. Rogal lrish Acadeny Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy
Quart. Jour. of Math. Quarterly Journal of Mathematics
Scripta Math. Scripta Mathematica
Sitzungsbn. Akad. Wiss zu Bulin Sitzungsberichte der Kdniglich Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin
Sitzungsbcr. der Akad. dtr Wiss,, I'liaz Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie
der Wissenschaften zu Wien. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen
Klasse
Trans. Camb, Phil. Soc. Cambridge Philosophical Society, Transactions
Trans. Royal hish Acadenry Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy
Zeit. filr Math. und Phgs. Zeitschrift fur Mathematik und Physik
Zeit. fib Physik Zeitschrift fur Physik
Indexes
Name Index
Abbati, Pietro, 265 Archimedes, 37, ro5-16, rg4, 163-66, 168,

Abel, Niels Henrik, er6, 973-74, to24, to1g, 186,395
ro9?, rrrr, rrgT; biograply, 6+4-4b; Abe- Archytas, 27-28, 42, 46, 48-49
lian integrals, 655-55; eUiptic functions, Argand, Jean-Robert, 650-8!, ??6
645-50; rigorization of analysis, 947-48, Aristaeus the Elder,48
964-65,973-74; theory of equations, 754- Aristarchus, 156-57
Si Aristotle, z6-27, gg-97, Ir-54, r5r-53, r55-
Ackerman, Wilhelm, reoS 56, r6e-63, 2o7, 1gb, $6, 176,992, rosS;
Adams, John Couch, g69 concept of mathematics, Sr, rgr-59
Adelard of Bath, eo5, :o7 Arnauld, Antoine, g5g
Agrippa von Nettesheim, aS6 Aronhold, Siegfiied Heinridr, gr8
Ahmes, 16, r8, zo Aryabhata, r84, r87, r89
Al-Battanl, rg5 Arzeli, Cesare, rc46, to77-78
Alberti, Leone Battista,252-33, p85 Ascoli, Giulio, to77
Al-Blrtni, r9o, tg5, q4r Augustine, Saint, so4
Albuzjani. See Abt'l-Weffl Autolycus of Pitane, 54
Alembert, Je-an I,e Rond d', 6sE, 862, ro29;
algebra, b98; calculus, 4r5, 46b, 9b4;
complex function theory, 6e6-:8; com- Babbage, Charles, e59,6re
plex numbers, 595; Fourier series, 458- Biicklund, Alb€rt Victor, ToS
gg; mechanics, 616; ordinary difierential Bacon, Francis, z15-16
equations, 477,484,494, 5oo; partial dif- Bacon, Ro8€r, r45, ro7-8, rt3, 126
ferential €quations, 503-5, 5ro, 5re-13, Baire, Rend, ro79, rt86, rrgg
bt6-t7, b22,542; rigor, 619. Baldi, Bernadino,2e3, z2g
Alexander, James 1{., tr76-77, rrTg-8o Baltzer, Richard, 879
Alexander the Great, 4, ror-r Banach, Stephen, ro88-92
Alexandroft, Paul S., rrSr Barrow, Isaac, :52, :8r,339, 946-47, Xb6-b7,
Alhazen, r93, 196 g8o,38g-84
Al-Karkhl, r9: Bartels, Johann M., 862,8?8-?9
Al Kashl,254 Bede, Venerable, 2o2
Al-KhowArizml, r9r-99 Beeckman, Isaac, 316, 478
Amptre, Andr6-Marie, 7og, 75o Beltrami, Eugenio, 896, gor-c, go5, 9t4,
Anaxagoras,38, r47 ro3o, rr22, rrgo
Anaximander, gZ Bendixson, lvar,797
Anaximenes, pT Benedetti, Giovanni Battista, 223,229,:34,
Antiphon,4a 478
Apastamba, r84 Berkeley, George, Bishop, 4oo, 427-28
Apollonius, b6, 89-99, r35, rg7-58, 168, goo Bernays, Paul, teo5
l2l9
r220 NAME INDEX
Bernoulli, Daniel, 4or, 446, 479'8r, 492' Brill, Alexander von, 938, 94o
bo7-ro, br2,52r, b24, b78,677, rrt2 Brillouin, Ldon, r toz
B€rnoulli, James: calculus, 380-83, 4o7, Briot, Charles A. 4.,642, 7r8,722
4rz; calculus of variations, 51877; co' Brouncker, Lord William, 255, e78, 468'69
ordinate Seom€try, 32o; differential ge- Brouwer, Luitzen E. 1., rt3z, 116z, rr7r,
ometry, 56r; infinite series, 4Eg, 442-46, r r77-79, r r99-rro3, rzoS
45r; ordinary difierential equations, 47r- Brunelleschi, Filippo, 232

?5, 478; probability, 27 3'7 4 Bryson,42
Bernoulli, John, 395, 34o, 492,592; calcu- Ruchheim, Arthur, 8o8
lus, 38o-83, 387-88, 4o6-rr; calculus of Burali-Forti, Cesare, too3
variations, b7 4-71 i cootdinzte Seometry, Btirgi, Joost, 258
545; difterential geometry, 556, 562; in- Buridan, Jean, 2r l -r2
finite s€ries, 44r-42, 444, 446; ordinary Burnside, William, r r42-45
difierential equations, 4t2-76, 418-19'
' 503
497
Caesar, Julius, r78, t8o
Bernoulli, Nichoias (r687-t?59), 4t2, 447' Cajori, Florian, 263, 464
46r-69 Callett, Jean-Charles (FranSois), 463'64
Bernoulli, Nicholas (t695-t726), 4ot, 475 Camp3nus, Johannes, zt7
Berry, G. G., r t83 Cantor, Georg,8z4,969, ro2r, ro3r, ro4o,
Bessarion, Cardinal, 238 to42, to44, ro78, rr59, rr6r, rr84-85;
Bessel, Friedrich Wilhetm, 7rc, 7q, 87t' irrational numbers, 983-86; sets and
72, gl8o
transfinite numbers, gg2- roo3
Betti, Enrico, r 169 Caratheodory, Constantin, 838
Beudon, Jules, Zo3 Carcavi, Pierre de, e75
Bezout, Etienne, 5Et, ffi-8, ?96, ?98 Cardan, Jerome, z2r-22, 224, zg6, e5r'53,
Bhaskara, r84-86, 271 260,263-7r, ro28
Bianchi, Luigi, 554, tt22 Carnot, Lazare N. M., 4Ae, 593, 895-36, 84t
Binet, Jacques P. M., 796 Carroll, Lewis. See Dodgson, Charles L.
Biot, Jean-Baptiste, 836 Cartan, Elie, rr5t, rtg5-56
Birkholf, George David, rto6-8, rt78 Cassini, Jacques, 3zo, 469
B6cher, Maxime, 599, 607 Cassini, Jean-Dominque, 32o
Bethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus, zor Cassiodorus, Aurelius, loz
Bolyai, John, 813-74, 877-8r, 9r4, 9er, ro32- Castelnuovo, Guido, gB4
33
Catalanl Eugene Charles, 288
Bolyai, Wolfgang Earkas, 86r, 872, 878'79 Cataldi, Pietro Antonio, 278
Bolzano, Bernhard, 948, 95o-55, 963, 979, Cauchy, Augustin-Louis, 465, 941, 993,
985, 994, ro:5 to24, to2g, 10?6, rogg-rroo; biography,
Bombelli, Raphael, 2bZ-bb, 260 633-94; al8ebra, 796, 798, 8or-2, 8r5-r6;
Bonnet, Ossian, 865 complex function theory, 634-42, 667i
Boole, George, g:7, t r 89-9t difierential equations, 539, 68o-8t, 698,
Borchardt, Cart Wilhe lm, 624, 667, gBL 7or-2, 7tj-2r, 739, 742:, diflerential 8e'
Borel, Emile, 953-54, to44, ro?8, rrrT-r9, ometry, 560-0r; foundations of analysis,
r r59, r r86, tt99 96t, 963-65, 973-?4, 979, to24,
948, 95o-58,
Bose, Abraham, u 89 r096-97: geometry, 843; grouP theory,
Bott, Raoul, r 15r 765-66, 768, rr37; theory of numbers,
Bouquet, Jean-Claude, 642, 118, 722 8rg
Bourbaki, Nicolas, rzto Cavalieri, Bonvaventura, 349-5o, 383-84
Boutroux, Pierre, r r8z Cayley,Arthur, 478, 768-69, 792, 796, 8o4 1,
Bowditch, Nathaniel, 496 8r2, 944, ro3o, ro3g, rr38-39, rr42-43,
Boyer, Carl B., 948 rr66; biography, 8o5; algebraic invari-
Boyre, Robert, 227 ants, g2?-2g, 93r; non-Euclidean Eeom-
Brahe, Tycho, 2og, 2rg, 242 etery, 907-9, 92r-23
Brahmagupta, r83-84, tgr C6ch, Eduard, t r8r
Bravais, Auguste, 768 Cellerier, Charles, 955-56
Brianchon, Charles-Julien, 836, 84t Cesdro, Ernesto, ror8, rrr2-r3
Briggs, Henry, 275-76, 44o Charpit, Paul, 535
NAME INDEX r22r
Chasles, Michel, 529, 834-36, 844, 846, 849- and complex numbers, 25s-54; optics,
5o 3r4-r5; philosophy of scicnce, 3:5-3r,
Chevalier, August, 7b6 333'34
Chladni, Ernst F. F., 697 Deschales, Claudc-Frangois Milliet, gq.i
Christoffel, Elwin Bluno, 666, 896-99, ro3o, Dickson, Leonard 8., 7gz, 7g+, r14r, r146,
1r22, I r27-28 r r5o-5t
Chuquet, Nicolas, z5z, z6o Diderot, Denis, 616, 613
Cicero, r79 Dini, Ulisse, ro4o
Clairaut, Alexis-CIaude: biography, 557; Dinostratus,4z,48
calculus, 425; coordinate Seometry, 545, Diocles, rr8-r9, 168, 286
b48, b5r; differential equations, 469-70, Diocletian, r79
476-7?, 494, 496-97, b2g,5g2; differential Diogenes, Laertius, 44
geometry, 569, 562-69; rigor, 618- rg; tri8- Dionis du Sijour, Achitte-Pierre, 554
onometric series, 498, 5r4 Diophantus, r36, rq8-44, rq2
Clavius, Christophorus, roo6 Dirichlet, Petir Gustav Lejeune", 8rg-2o,
Ctebsch, (Rudolf Friedrich) Alfred, 8o8, 829-30, 948, 95o,966-67, ro4o, rr45
929, 934'40' 943'44 Dodgson, Charles L., 8og
Cleopatra, r8o Du Bois-Reymond, Paul, 694, 7cn, 7o5-6,
Clifford, William Kingdon, ?92,893, r167 g7o-jr, 979, 992, 998, ro2o, to4o, ro42,
Codazzi, Delfino, 885 I O52
Cohen, Paul J., rzog Duns Scotus, John, 2o8
Collins, John, :7r, 363, 38o Dupin, Charles, 568-69, 896
Colson, John,3rg Diirer, Albrecht, 233-35
Commandino, Federigo, r85 Dyck, Walther von, r r4r, r r48
Condorcet, Marie-Jean-Antoine-Nicolas
Caritat de, 5oo, 623-24 Einstein, Albert, r re7, r rgo-gr
Constantine, r80 Eisenhart, Luther P., r rB4-35
Copernicus, Nicholas, zrg, zg8, z4r-49, z4g- Eisenstein, Ferdinard Gotthold, 8r8, gz7-e9
46, ggr, 6zo Empedocles, r5o
Cotes, Roger, 4o8, 439, 46o, 6oo Engel, Friedrich, 878
Coulomb, Charles, 5o7 Enriques, Federigo, roog
Cousin, Pierre, 954 Eratosthenes, 98, l60-61
Cramer, Gabriel, 44o, 5gz-54,6o6, 7gG Euclid, 56.89, r45, 579
Crelle, August Leopold, 6:4, 837 Eudemus of Rhodes, 26, 29, 53.b4
Cremona, Luigi, 993 Eudoxus, 27, 46, 48-bo,68, r45, r54
Ctesibius, r rO Euler, Leonhard, 614, 629, 739, 9r8, 948,
rorg, rr69-64; biography, 4or-3, 616;
Dandelin, Germinal, 837 algebra, 258, e6?, 4o8-r l, 593-94, 597-98,
Danti, Ignazio, 222-2A tu7, 798:' calculus, 4r7-er, 429-Bo, 618;
Darboux, Gaston, 478, 625, 694, 95q,956-60 calculus of variations, 573, i77-7g, b9z,
Dcdekind, Richard, jgg, 942-4Zi.absfiact 586-87, 74o; comPlex functions, 62?-28;
algebra, rr38, rt4z, r145-46, rr5o; alge- coordinate geometry, i4S-47, bbo, b5}-54i
braic numbcrs, 8zo-24; irrational num- differential equations, 477-79, 4at-82,
bers,98g-88 484-86, 488-89, 192-93, 496-97, 5oo, 5o2,
Dchn, Max, roo8, lol6, ll43 bob-22, bzb, g4o-42, 687, 7r7-r8; differen-
Delambre, Jean-Baptiste, 623 tial g€ometry, 586, b58-89, 56:-65, 88e;
Democritus, 37, r5o infinite series, 439, 446-54,460-65, rroo,
DeMorgan, Augustus, bg1, B96, 774-jE, g7i- rro3, rrog-ro, rr14; philosophy of
?6, 98o, r096-97, rr8e, r188-89 science, 6zo; special functions, 4e2-24i
Desargues, Girard, rz8, 285, 288-95, 3oo, theory of numbers, 276, 459-60, 6o8-rs,
tl4o 8r3, 8r5, 8e6, 8s8-3r; trigonometric
Descartes, RcnC erg-zo, 226-sZ, 395, 896, series,454-59
ro28, r168, rr87; biography, Bo4-8; alge- Eutocius, r30
bra, :6o, giz, 270-1-2, 28o-8r; calculus,
345-46; coordinate geometry, go2, Bo8- Fagnano, Giulio Carlo de'Toschi de, Count,
r7; functions, 338; music,478; negative 4t3'r7
r222 NAME INDEX
Fagnano, J. F. de'Toschi di, 859 structions, Z5g-b4; difierenti"l .q.,rtionr,

Fatio de Duillier, Nicholas, 38r, 557 68p, 684-85, 7tz, j23t differential geom-
Fatou, Pierre, ro47 etry, 882-go; foundations of analysis,
Feit, Walter, r r4r g4g, 962; mcrchanics, 74o; non-Euclidean
Fej&, Leopold, tttg geometry, 868, 8?0-74, 877-Bt, gzr,947-
fenn, Joseph, 865 48; special functions, 4s4; theory of
FerEat, Pierre de: biography, 274, 295' numbers, 8r3-2o, 816-go
395; catculus, 344-48, 35o, 352, 356, 383; Geminus of Rhodes, ro4-5
coordinate geometry, 302-4, 3t6-r7, 3er; Gentzen, Gerhard, r 2oq
optics, 5r5, 58o-8r; probability, 273; the- Gerard of Cremona, 89
ory of numbers, 274-78, 6o8-9, 6r r, 8e9 Gerb€rt (Pope Sylvester II), eor
Ferrari, Lodovico, r34, 263, 26?-68 Gergonne, Jowph-Diez, 624, 837, 84o, 842,
Ferro, Scipione dal, :63 845-46, rooS
Feuerbach, Karl Wilhelm, 837 Germain, Sophie, 7o2, Zg9, 884
Fibonacci. sa€ lJonardo of Pisa. Ghetaldi, Marino, 280
Finsler, Paul, r rg5 Gibbs, Josiah Willard, 786-87, 79r, ro23
Fior, Antonio Maria, 263 Gilbert de la Por6e, zo6
Fischer, Charles Albert, roSo Gilbert,-William, 2r8
Firher, Ernst, roTr-7e cirard, Albert, r53, 2Zo
Floquet, Gaston, ?r5-r4 Gtidel, Kurt, r206-7, r2o9
Fontaine des Bertins, Alexis, 4:5, 47t Goldbach, Christian, 422, 462-62, bgj-98,
..Fontana, Niccold. Scc Tartaglia, Niccolb 6r6
I\ Fourier, Joceph,5or, 9149, 957, gr6r-6a, tor4, Gombaud, Antoine, Chevalier de Mer6,
ro56-37; biography, 67r-7c; partial dif- 273
I ferential equations, 67e-8o; special func- Gordan, Paul, 929-30, 984, 939-40
' tions, ?ro Goudin, Matthieu 8., 5b4
Fraenkel, Abraham A,, r 186 Goursat, Edouard, 668-69, ?oa
Fr6chet, Maurice, lo?8-8o, ro8r, ro84, Grandi, Guido, 387, 445-46
r r59-6r Grassmann, Hermann Gtnther, 78e-85,
Fredholm, Erikl lvar, 1056, 1058-60 7gr, 793, 9r4,984, ror7, ro3o
Fregp, Gottlob, 988, to34, I tgr-92 Green, George, 683-85, rorg, r ror-z
Frenet, Frdderic-Jean, 562 Gregory, David, 47o, b1g
Frenicle de Besy, Bernard, e76 Gregory, Duncan F., 174, g8o
Fresnel, Augustin-Jean, 69?, ro36, ro5a Gregory, James, z7o-Ir, 239,355-56, 388-89,
Frobenius, F. Georg, +64, 72b,795, 808-9, 49839, 44r, 46t
rrrer rr39, tr4t-42, rt45 Gregory of St. Vincent, Zoo, lb4, 3b6, $7
Fubini, Guido, ro48-49 Grelting, Kurt, r r88-84
Fuchs, lazarus, 7zr-22, 724-zb, 727 Gross€teste, Robert, zo7, 213, 226, 58o
Grossmann, Marcel, r t3r
Galen, ro3 Gua de Malves, Abbd Jean-Paul de,:7o,
Galilei, Galileo, eo3, sl9,22g, zzg, gzg,478, 549'52
gE3; bioglaPhy, 32?-c8; astronomy, 246- Gudermann, Christof, 643
47; calculus, 348-49, 356; methodolo8y Guldin, Paul, rrg
and philosophy of science, gz7'gg,616, Gunter, Edmuud, 258
6eo
Galois, Evariste, 653,752, to24, rr37, r146; Hachette, Jean-Nicolas-Pierre, b47, 8or
biography, 755-56; finite fields, rr49-5o; Hadamard, Jacques, 626, 7o3, roo3, toe6,
group theory, 764-68; theory of equa" ro77-78, ro8g, rr86, rrgg; alegbra, 8o4;
tions, 756-57, 260-63 theory of numbers, 83 t
Gans, Richard, r ro8 Hahn, Hans, ro88, rogo
Gasscndi, Pierre, 396 Halley, Edmond, 357-58
Gauss, Carl Friedrich, 98o, 993, roo6, ro:4, Halphen, Georges-Henri, bb\, g4r 42 -
ro3z, rr36-37, rr45, rr64; biograPhy, Halsted, George 8., ror5

8?o-7r, 882, 947; algebra, 2Zr, 59b, 598' Hamilton, William R., 58r, 74o-45, 772,
gs, 152-53, 176:77, 7g3, 796; comPlex 77b-76, 792-94,983, 989; biography, 777-
numbers and functions, 63r-33; con- 78; quaternions, 779-8:, toz5
NAME INDEX 1223
Hankel, Hermann, Ttt,95o,986, ro3r Isadore of Seville, soz

Hardy, Godfrey H., 83r, roBS-gO Isidorus of Miletus, rgo
Harnack, Alex, ro48 Ivory, James,523
Harriot, Thomas, P52, sfu, e8o
Hausdorfi, Felix, r r6o-6r
Heath, Sir Thomas L.,57, rr8 Jacobi, Carl Gustav Jacob, 6rr, 8r3, ro:4,
Heaviside, Oliver,3, 698,787, 79o-9r, ro96- roz6, ro37, rroo; algebra, 6o8, 798-99,
g? 8or; calculus of variations, 14b_47i @m_
Hecataeus, 160 plex function theory, 645-47, 649-83;
Heiberg, J. L., 57 mechanics, 743-4bi theory of numbers,
Heine, (Heinrich) Eduard, 689, 7rr-r3,969 8r8,8eg
Heisenberg, I/Verner, rog, Jeffreys, Harold, rro2, rrog
Helly, Eduard, ro88 Jones, William, 2Sr, 288, 4o4, 448
Helmholtz, Hermann von, 525, 699-94, 9eo- Jordan, Camille, 7b6, 766-69, g7t, tor7,
2r, ro2r, ro3o, ro34-35 ro2o, ro4o,. rc4n-44, tt44, rr5g, 116r,
Hensel, Kurt,8o8,94r, r 146-47 1168
Hermann, lacob, 475, b44-4b, b62 Jordanus Nemorarius, gr r-rr
Hermite, Charles, 65r, 714, 763, 8o8-9, 973, Jurin, James,4z8
98r, ro35, ro49 Justinian,4g, r3o, r9o
Heron, 25, 97, r16-t7, r35-36,88o
Herschel, John, 622
Hesse, Ludwig Otto,857,927 Kant, Immanuel,86r, rogz
Hessenberg Gerhard, ror5, r r3c Kdstner, Abraham G, 44o, 754, ffig,87r
Hilbert, David, roo3, roc4, rogr, ro35, Kellogg, Oliver D.,726, tt78
ro38, rr37; biography, ro6o-6r; algebraic Kelvin, Lord (Sir William Thomson),648-
Beometry, 943; algebraic invariants, 929- 49, j72,933, trcrt
32; calculus of variations, ?o4, 7og; dif-Kepler, Johannes, tr9-2o, c3r, c86, 2gp,
ferential equations, ?26; foundations, a99, 33r, 6eo; biography, z4e-4gi c,,l-
g9o-92, roro-16, ro27, r2o3-8; integral culus, 342-49, 383; heliocenuic theory,
equations, ro55, 1060-70, ro82; non- 24t,243-46
Euclidean geometry, 906; theory of Kervaire, Michel, rr5r
numbers,6o9,825 Khayyarr, Omar, r9r, gr4.gg r
Hill, George William, 1Zr-92, ro23 l(idinu, 4
Hipparchus, rrg-2o, 158-59 Killing, Wilhem K. J., rr55
Hippasus, 3e Kirchofi, Gustav R,, 694
Hippias of Elis,38-40 Kirkman, Thomas PenynSton, ?66
Hippocrates of Chios, e6, 40,-42, 4b, 47, bj Klein, Felix, 726, 728, 73o, 85e, 8Zr, 8gS,
Hobbes, Thomas,9r8,333,356,619,861 9ozl, roo3, ror9, roz4, rot3, ro37, r r39-{o,
Hobson, E. W., Zr2 r t45, r r59; Erlangcr Prcgrumm, gr1-zr;
Hoene-Wronski,JosefMaria,6rg non-Euclideangeometry,gtog-r';topol-
Htilder, (Ludwig) Otto,767, rrre-r3, rr42 ogy, r 162-68
Holmbtie, Berndt Michael, 644, 973 Kline, John R., ror5
Holmgren, Erik, ro6o Kliigel, George S.,867-69
Hooke, Rob€rt, 287,3b7,468 Kneser, Adolf,747
Horn, Jakob, 1106 Knopp; Konrad, rr83
Hudde, John, 16z Koch, Helge von, ro2o
Hume, David,862, roSe Koebe, Paul,939
Huntington, Edward V., ror4, rr4r, r146 Kowalewski, Gerhard, g55, lo5g
Hurwitz, Adolf, ?98, tooS Kowalewsky, Sophie, Zo2
Huygens, Christian, l1j, gb7, 362, 395, Kramers, Hendrik A., rroe
478' 492, 575, 58t; calculus, 355; coor- Kremer, Gerhard (Mercator), r35
dinate geometery, 5bb-b6:' differential Kronecker, Leopold, 7b5, 76r, g?9, 988,
equations, 47r-72; methodology of too3, ro34, roAZ, rr38, 1146, rr5o; alge-
rience,33r-gz, gg5 braic geometry, g4r-42; algebraic num-
Hypatia, r2g, !8r bers,824-a5; foundations, rlgT-98
Hypsicles,86, rr9 Kummer, Ernst Eduard, 8rg-ro, 8ri, torS
r224 NAME INDEX
Lacroix, Sylvcsrc-Frangois, 4y, 465-66, Leorrardo of Pisa, zo5.6,2og-ro, 237

6r 8, 948-49 Leray, Jean, r r78
Laertius, Diogcucs, 44 LeSturgeon, Elizabeth, ro8o
I-agny, Thomas Fantct, 4o4 Leucippus, 37, r5o
Lagrange, Joseph-Louis, 4o6, 426, ir47, Levi beu Gerson, r73
603, 6r4-r5, 678, 835, o48, toz4, tozg; Levi, Beppo, 945
biography, 493; algebra, 598, 6oo-6o6, Levi-Civita, Tullio, r r29, rrSr-82
796, Eoo-8or; astronomy, 493-95; calcu- Livy, Paul P., ro77
tus, 4go-32, 6r8, g49, 964; calculus of L'Hospital, Guillaumc F. A., 383, 387, 557
variations, 582-87, 739'4o; conformal Liapounofi, Alexander, 736
mapping, gio-7r, 687; difterential equa- Lie, Sopus, g2o-rr, ro3o, rr3g-4o, rr55
tions, 477-78, 486-87, 49?-98, 5ro-t4, 5r9, Liebmann, Heinrich, 906
b2r, 5zb, b32-3b, b4t-43,73o; SrouP the- Lindeman, Ferdinancl, 98t-82
ory, 264-66; infiuite series, 446, 458'59, Liouville, Joseph, 6:4-25, 65o, 667, 7r3,
465-65; mechanics, 739-43; theory of 7tb-17, ltg, 766, 824, 939, 98t, ro54,
numbers, 609-r r, 8r3, 826, 828 r lol-2
Laguerre, Edmond, 9o6-7, r r r4-r5 Lipschitz, Rudolph, 7r8, 899, 9o2, ro3o,
La Hire, Philippe de, 289, zg8'3or,3zt, r rzz, r rz7-28
84o Listing, Johann B., r r64-65
Lamb, Horace, 468 Lobatchevsky, Nikolai lvanovich, 873-8 t,
Irmbert, Johann Heinrich, 224, 4o4, 460, 914,92r
57o, 868-69, 879, 887 Locke, John, 6rg, 86s
I-am6, Gabriel, 687-89, 7r2-r3, 8r9, goo- Lommel, Eugen C. J., 7ro
90r Lull, Raymond, r r87
Lancret, Michol-Ange, 559-6o Liiroth, Jacob, 937
Landsberg, Georg, 942
I-aplace, Pierre-Simon de, 426, 5o2, 972,
rogz, rogS-99; bio$aphy, 494 95, 628; Maclaurin, Colin, 418-:9, 442, 461, 522-
algebra, 6o7, 796, 8oo-8ot; astronomy, rg,55z-53,6o6
496; difterential equations, 477-78, 497, Magnus, Ludrvig Imanuel, 93g
bo2, iz7-29, g4z-43, 682, 687; philosophy Magnus, Wilhelm, r t43
of science, 628 Mahavira, r84-85, r8?
Lasker, Emanuel, r r53 Mainardi, Gaspare, 885
Laurent, Pierre-Alphonse, 64 r Malus, Etienne-Louis, 569
Lebesgue, Henri, 954, g6t, to44-5o, tt59, Mariotte, Edmi, 468
r 16r, r 186, rrgg Masaccio, e3r
Lefschetz, Solomon, r r8o Mascheroni, Lorenzo, r35, 84o
Legendre, Adrien-Marie, ro98; calculus of Maschke, Heinrich, r r45
variations, 589-9o; differential equa- Mastres, Francis, Baron, 592-gg
tions, l')25-3r; elliptic integrals, 420-22, Mestlin, Michael, 24A
646; Euclidean geometery, 58, 865-66, Mathieu, Emile-L6onard, 689, 7tg
ro3l; number system, 593; special func- Maupertuis, Pierre L. M., 469, E8r -82, 6eo,
tions, 424, 526-e8, 5Bo-Br; theory of 740
numbers, 6l l-r2, 813, 815, 826, 83o 2zZ,229, 272
Ma urolycus, Francesco,
Iribniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, 2bs, 2b8, 935, Maxwell, James Clerk, 684, 698-99, ?85-86,
38o, 39r, ggb, 492,862, ro:8; biography, 79o, 87o, 93r
37o-7r; algebra, e8r, 4o8-r t, 4r r-r2, 599- Mayer, Frdddric-Christian, 4o4
6oo; calculus, 32r-8o, 984-89; calculus of Medici, Cosimo I de', zro
variations, 5?5; differential equations, Medici, Cosimo II de', 322
47t-72, 414-15i differential geometry, Menaechmus, 42, 47-48
556-52; function concePt, 339-40; in- Menelaus, r zo-zz
finite series, $8-29, 44r,446, 46r; mathe- Menger, Karl, r r6e
matical logic, r187-88; philosophy of Miray, Charles, 983
science, 2rg, 619; topology, rr58, r108-64 Mercator. see Kremer, Gerhard
Leon, 57 Mercator, Nicholas (born Kaufman), 354,
Leonardo da Vinci, z2y-2b, 2Zg-Zb, bBo 437
NAME rNDEX 1225
Mere, Chevalier de. See Gombaud, An- function concept, 339-4o; infinite series,
toine 437-42, 46ti compared with Leibniz,
Mersenne, Marin, z7g-76,278, zg5, 3o4, 478 378-8o; methodology of science, 33r, 334;
Mertens, Franz, 929 philosophy of science, 2rg, 616, 620
Metrodorus, r38 Nicholas of Cusa, Cardinal, z4r
Metzler, William Henry,8o8,8rr Nichomachus, 135-38, eor
Meusnier,Jean-Baptiste-Marie-Charles, Nicole,Frangois,548
563-64,586 Nicomedes, r r7-r 8, e86
Mezir-iac, Claude Bachet de, z6r,274 Nieuwentijdt, Bernard, 385
Mill, John Stuart, 86r Niibeling, A. Georg, 1162
Miller, George A., r r42 Noether, Emmy, 93r-32, r t53, r t8o
Milnor, John, rr5r, r176 Noether, Max, 933-34, g4o-4r,944
Minding, Ferdinand, 6o8,886,893,9o5 Novikov, P. S., rr43
Minkorvski, Hennann, 8e9, 99r
Mirimanoff, Dimiry, 8eo Ohm, Martin, 976, 982
Mittag-Lemer, Gtista, 668 Olbers, Heinrich W. M., 8r8, 872, 98o
Mitbius, Augustus Ferdinand, j77, 846, Oldenburg, Henry, 2?9,37o
852-53,9r8, ro28, 1164-66 Olympiodorus, 58o
Mohr, George, :34, 84o Oresme, Nicole, 2rc'rt,24r, 437
Moivre, Abraham de, 4og, 453-94, 6oo Ostrogradsky, Michel, 683, 789-9o
Motien, Theodor, r r44 Oughtred, William, 258
Monge, Gaspard, 46 596-4o, b+7, b6b-69, Ozanam, Jacques, 3e3, rozS
6r4, 6r6-r7, 8or, 896, 84o
Monte, Guidobaldo del, r:3, 234, 286 Pacioli, Luca, 224-37, zbo-bt, 260
Montmort, Pierre R6mond de,473 Painlevi, Paul,737
Montucla, J. F. (Jean-Etienne), 6r? Pappus, 26, 98, 57, t2Z-29, 168, t74, 223,
Moore, Eliakim H,, r5, roo9, ror8, ro8z, roo5
-42, rrio
r r4r Parent, Antoine,545
Morland, Samuel, 258 Parmenides, 17, r5o
Morlcy, Frank,839-4o Parseval, Marc-Antoine, 716-17
Motre, Andrew,364 Pascal, Blaise, 2rg, 252, 288, 272-75, 395,
Mourraille, J. Raymond, g8r roz6, rosS; biography, 195-97; calculus,
Mtiller, Iohannes (Regiomontanus) 298- g5o, gb2-53,383-84; projective geometry,
39 zg7-3or,84o
Muller, J. H. T., 984 Pasch, Moritz, roo8'9, t t37
Murphy, Robert, Trr Peacock, George, 6zz, 773-15, 974-75, 98o
Mydorge, Claude, 295,8o4 Peano, GiusePPe, 988-89, roog-ro, ror4,
ror8, ro2o, ro38, ro4:-49, rrg7, rr6e
Nabu-rimanni, 4 Peckham, John, er3
Napier, John, 256-58 Peirce, Benjamin, 793, ro23
Nasir-Eddin, rgr, 196,864, 866 Peirce, Charles S., 793, rr44, rrgr
Nave, Annibale della, e63 Peletier, Jacques, roo5
Nalier, Clau<le L. M. H., 696-98 Pemberton, Henry, 392
Neile, William, 98, 355 Pericles, 3?
Nelson, Leonard, r 183-84 Peurbach, George, 238
Netto, Eugen E., ror8, l l3g Peyrard, Fran$ois, 57
Neugebauer, otto, 47 Pfaff, Johann Friedrich, 489, 87o
Neumann, Carl Gottfried, 666, 685, 7o4, Philolaus, 28, t47'48
Zrr, ro54 PhiloPonus,:rr
Neumann, John von, rogz-95, r186, rzo5 Piazzi, Giuseppe,8To
Newton, Sir Isaac: biography, 465-69; alge- Picard, (Charles) Emile, 668, 705'6, 72o,
bra, 2S2, 2b4, 27r-72,28r, 600, 60?; as- 945, to25, to37, to4o, ro7o, 1169
tronomy, gig-6g, 47o; calculus, 354, 359- Pick, Georg, rrSr
65, 384, 387, 556; calculus of variations, Pieri, Mario, roog'ro
Ei3-24; coordinate geometry, 548-49; dif- Piero della Francesca, 233, 235
ferential equatiors, 47o, 47b,4gr -93, 497; PierPont, James, ro96
1226 NAME INDEX
Pitiscus, Bartholomius, z98 analysis, 955, 967-69; non-Euclidean ge-

Pitot, Henri, 545 ometry, gr4; theory of numbers, 83r;
Plateau, Joseph, 75o topology, g2o; trigonometric series, 967-
Plato, 26, 38, 42-47,47-48, t5o-5t, t54, 395, 69, ro4o
roi6; concept of mathematics, 43-44, Riesz, Friedrich, roTo-79, ro85-87
r5o-5r, r75 Roberval, Gilles Persone de, r95, 338-39,
Playfair, John, 865 244, 3bo-ir, 354, 344
Pliicker, Julius, 856, E46, 853-58, 953 Roch, Gustav, 665, 934
Plutarch, 46, ro6 Rodrigues, Olinde, 53r, 883
Poincar6, Henri, 7o6-7, ?o9, 973, roo3, Rohault, Jacques, 492
ror5-e6, ro56, rr45; biography, 7o6, Rolle, Michel, 38r
to24, rt7ot algebra, ?32; algebraic geom- Romanus, Adrianus, e40
etry, gg8-39; asymPtotic series, to97, Rosanes, Jacob, 934
rro4-8; automorphic functions, ?28-30, Rudolft, Christoff, 2b4
rr39; difierential equations, 7o4, 7c6-7, Ruffini, Paolo, 605-6, ?64-66
?3p-5?; foundations, 1086, r rg?-99; non- Russell, Bertrand, 923, 988, 982, roo3, roo5,
Euclidean geometry, gr6-t7, gsr-22; to- ro33, rr83-84, ! r92-96
pology, r16r-6r, ! 120-76, rr?8-79 Rychlik, K., 955
Poisson, Simeon-D€nis, 452, 464, 633, 6?8-
79, 68r-8r, 690-gr, 697, 7to, 7gg-4o,8ot, Saccheri, Gerolamo, 866-67, 869, 879-8o
96r, ror4, ro5P, rroo, rro3, rrro-rr Salmon, George)e7-eg
Poncelet, Jean Victor, 834, 836-37, 84o, 841- Sarasa, Alfons A., 354
46, 906, 95r, ror4 Sarrus, Pierre Fr&dric, 584
Pontrjagin, kv S., r r8o Sauveur, Joseph, 478
Porde, Gilbert de la, eo6 Schauder, Jules P., r r78
Porphyry, 5? Scheeffer, Ludwig, roeo
Poudre, N. C., c89 Scherk, Heinrich F., 796
Pringsheim, Alfred, ro38 Schmidt, Erhard, ro7o, .ro8r-84
Proclus, c4, 26, zg, 44, 56, ro4, re9, r3r, Schnee, Walter, rrr3
863-64, grgr, roo5 Schoenflies, Arthur M., rorS
Ptolemy, Claudius, rrg, rss-25, r45, 159-6o, SchoPenhauer, Arthur, roo5
169, E6r, 866 Schrtidinger, Erwin, rog2
Puiseux, Victor, liz, 64r-42 Schur, Friedrich, 899, roog
Pythagoras, e?-34, 46 Schur, Issai, r 144-45
Schwarz, Herman Amandus, 6ffi, 7o4, 7o6,
Quetelet, I-ambert .{. J. 569, 845, 933 717, 838-39, toro
Schweikart; Ferdinand Karl, 868-69, 879
Raabe, Joseph L., rr rr Seeber, Ludwig August, 829
Radon, Johann, ro5o Seidel, Philipp L., 969
Rameau, Jean-Philippe, 5r5 Serret, Joseph Aured, 862, 766
Raphson, Joseph, 38r Servois, Frangois-Joseph, 774, 177, 826, 84r
Rayleigh, I-ord (Strutr, John William), 684 Simart, Georges, 945
Recorde, Robert, 259-60 Simplicius, p6, 35, r3o
Regiomontanus. Sd, Miiller, Johannes Simpson, Thomas, 4e7
Regius, Hudalrich, e78 Smale, Stephen, r r76
Rhaeticus, George Joachim, e38-39 Smith, Henry J. S., 8og, 96o, roo5
Riccati, Jacopo Franc€sco, Count, 483.84, Snell, Willebrord, e85
5(,0 Sochozki, Julian W., 668
RicclCurbastro, Gregorio, r ree-3o Socrates,43
Richard, Jules, r r83 Sonine, Nickolai J., 7r4
Riemann, Georg Friedrich Bernhard, roer, Stallings, John R., r 176
ro3o, ro3t, to77, tr22i biography, 655- Stark, M. H., 8e2
56, 889, 924; complex function theory, staudt, Karl Georg Christian von, 85o-5p,
656-66, 994, 989; differ€ntial equations, 906
69r-9l, 722-24, 7r7; difierential geome- Stein€r, Jacob, 836, 838, 84o, 846-48, 993
try, 889-99, go4, rr2r; foundations of Steinitz, Ernst, r 14?-49
NAME INDEX r227
SteYin, Simon, 2bo-b4, 776 Varignon, Pierre, 4o3, 47o

Stewart, Matthew, 6s2 Vasari, Giorgio, z3z
Stickelberg€r, Ludwig, r r39 Veblen, Oswald, roog, ror4-15, ror7, rrB4,
Stieltjes, Thomas Jan, 973, r04r, rro4, r r8o
rr 14-!7 Veronese, Giuseppe, roro, ror6
Stifel, Michael, z5r-gz, 256, z7g Vieta, FranEois, 23819, 242, 25r-5p, 260-62,
Stirling, James, 4bZ, 54i, b48-49, 5b3 166, 268-?0, 279-80, 437
Stokes, Sir George Gabriel, 684, 697, 965, Vietoris, Leopold, r r8!
r roo, r lo2-3 Viviani, Vincenzo, 396
Stolz, Orto, 986, ro42 Vitali, Giuseppe, ro48-49
Study, Eduard, 835, 838-89 Vitello, 2rB
Sturm, Charles, T r5- 17 Vitruvius, r79
Sylow, Ludwig, 768 Voltaire, $4, 469, 492
Sylvester, Bernard, zo6 Volterra, Vito, 986, roa3, roz8, ro48, ro56-
Sylvester, James Joseph, z7r, 544, 625, 798- b8, toTj-78
8oo, 8oe-3, 1136; biography, 797:, alge-
braic invariants, 927, g3o Wallis, John, 396-98; algebra, zbz-bl), zbi-
286, 28r; calculus, BEg, 956, 388; com-
Taber, Henry, 8o8 plex numbers, 594-98; coordinate geom-
Tebit ibn Qorra, r9g, r95, e78 etry, 3r9; infinite series, 43i-38; parallel
Tait, Peter Guthrie,78!, Zgr,8rP, 93r axiom, 864-65; theory of numbers, :78
Tartaglia, Niccol0, ro7, 22o,229, 234, 2bo, Wantzel, Pierre L., Ib4, 764
:63-64 Waring, Edward, 465, 6o9
Tauber, Alfred, rrrg Watson, Georg€ N.,7tr, r loo
Taurinus, Franz Adolf, 869, 879 Weber, Heinrich, 689, 7t4, g4z, tt45-46
Taylor, Brook, 224, 427, 44r-42, 4j8-79 Weber, Wilhelm, 87r
Tchebycheft, Pafnuti L., 830-3r Wedderbum, Joseph H. M., 794, r r5o-59,
Thales, z7-28, 46, r47 r r56
Theaetetus, 42, 48 Weiersrass, Karl: biography, 648; algebra,
Theodoric of Freiburg, z 13 ?99, 8o2; algebraic geometry, g3g, 942;
Theodorus of Cyrene, 4e, 48 calculus of variations, 664-6b, 686,.147-
Theodosius, r rg 49; complex furrctions, 642-44, 6go-gr,
Theodosius, Emperor, r8o 664-65; foundations of analysis, 948, 95r-
Theon of Alexandria, 2i, b7, rzg 53, 996, 965-66, 929; foundation of arith-
Theophrastus, a6 metic, 983, 98?
Theudius, 57 Wellstein, Joseph, 9r6
Thierry of Chartres, 206 Wentzcl, Gregor, r ro:
Thomae, Karl J., 96r Werner, Johann, z99
Thompson, John G., r r4z Wessel, Caspar, 6z9-3o, 776-77
Thompson, Sir William. See Kelvin, Lord Weyl, Hermann, ror, gs4, !026, roZ4, rogl-
Tonelli, Leonida, ro8 r 9s, rr34, r156; foundations of mathe-
Torricelli, Evangelista, 338, 356, 557 matics, l lg7, r2oo-r2ol, rrog, r:o6, rtoS-
Toscanelli, Paolo del Pozzo, z3z to
Trhirnhausen, Ehrenfried Walter von, Whitehcad, Alfred North, 25o, roog, rogr,
2Zo, 856, 899-600 r r84, r r9e-96
Wieuer, Norbcrt, 1088, log2
Uccello, Paolo, z3z William of Moerbecke, 164
Urban, Pope, g2Z William of Ockham, ro8 '
Urysohn, Paul S., r r6r-6r Wilson, John, 6ro
Wirtinger, Wilhelm, ro65
Vallde Poussin, Charles-Jean de la,83r-32 Witt, Jan d., b44-4b
Vandermonde, Alexandre-Theophile, 6oo, Wolf, Christian, 446
606-7, ?96 Woodhouse, Robert, 974
Van Schooten, Frans, 3r8 Wren, Christopher, Zb4-bS, b4j
Van't Hoff, Jacobus, r r30
\rarihamihira, r84, r89 Xenophanes, z7
r228 NAME INDEX
Young, John W., roog Zenodorous, re6, 976

Young, Thomas, 697 Zeno of Elea, z7 , 26-21, 160
Zermelo, Emtt, roo?, r184-86
Zeeman, E C., r 176 Zeuthen, Ilieronymous G., 944
Subj ect Index
Abelian equatiolr, 755 Anaulytic geomctry. Ssd Coordinate geom-

Abelian function, 665 etry
Abelian integral, 653, 663-65, 936, 999-40 Angle, projectivc dcfinitiotr of, 9o7, 9t t
Abel's thcorem, 645, 653-55, 995-86 Anharmonic ratio. Sse Cross ratio
Absolute, goz Apollouian problem, 99
Absolute differential calculus. Sea Tensor Application of areas, 34, 74-i7
analysis Arabs, r8r, rgo-gg,2o5
Absolutcly continuous function, ro48 Archimedes' principle, r 65-66
Abstmct algebra, o4s, rrg6-97:. Lie algebra, Areas, ro42; calculation ot, Z4l, 248-b4,
r r5g-56; non-associative algebra, rrSg- 36o; of surfaces, 955, roso
g6; see also Field; Group; Ideal; Ring Arithmetic: Arabic, rgr-9e; Babylonian,
Abstractiorr, 29, 4Z-44, t7r b-8; Egyptian, r6-r8; Greek, (Alexan-
Academies, 227, ZIo,396-97, 4ot, 4o4, 62t, drian), r3r-35; Hindu, 183-86; primitive,
l023 3; Renaissaucc, z5t-59
Academy oI Plaao, 27, 42-49, 4b, tZo, r9o Arithmelica, t Zg-42
Ad Locos Planos et Solidos Isagoge, goz, Atithnrctica Uniuetsalis, 2b2, 27r-72, 28r,
3r7 3rr,3r8,358,992,602
Adjoint curve, 935 Arithmetization of analysis, 947-72, roz3-z6
Acsthetics, r?2-?3 Ars Conjectand.i, 279, 442, 4bt
Afline geometry, 9rB Ars Magna,296, 259, 263-65, 262-68
Airy's integral, r roo, rroP-3 Astrology, 13, 168-69, rZ9, 196, ror-3,2e2
Akkadians, 4 Astrorromy, sbo, 47o-7t, 490-97; Arabic,
Alexandria, ror -3 r96; Babylonian, rr-r2; Egyptian, 2r-2s;
Algebra: and analysis, 323-24, 36r; as Greek, rrg, rzg-26, 148-49, r5r, 154-60;
analysis, 279-8o, g2g; Arabic, 19r-95; vs. Hindu, r8g; see also Geocenttic theory;
geometry, 49, rg6, rg?-98, 279-8:, 3r8, Gravitational attraction; Heliocentric
t2g, 36b,39r-92, 834-36; Greek (Alexan- theory; Threc-body problem
drian), ro4, r35-44: Hindu, t84-88; Re- Asymptotic scries, rogT- r rog; semiconver-
naissarrce, 236-37; of throws, 85o-5r; sec gent, ro97, \ro4; see abo WKBJ method
also Chaps. tg,2b, Zt, Zz, ll, i4 Athcns, 37, ror
Algebra, 364 Atomism, r5o, 329
Algebraic geometry, 92o, 924-46, r r68-69 Automorphic functions, 7e6-3o; elliptic
Algebraic invariants, 9:g-3r; absolute, gz6; modular, 722; Fuchsian, ?29; Kleinian,
complete system, 9e8-eg; covariant, 926 730
Algcbraic numbers, 593-94, 8r8-26, 98o, Automorphism, r r4z
996'9? Axes of a conic, 93-95
Almagest, b4, rzz-2b, r38, r59, 19r Axiom of Archimedes, Sr, ggr, rore-r3
Analytic continuation, 642-44, rr r4 Axiom of choice, rool, r186, r2o9
1229
r 23o SUBJECT INDEX
Axiom of reducibility, t t95-96 Cayley numbers, 792

Axiomatization, rc26-z7t of set theory, Chain, r r7 t -72
r r85-87 Chain, oscillations of, 480-8r
Axioms, 50, f2, ig-tu; of Euclid, 59-6o, Chain rule, 376
roo5-7; of Hilbert for geometry, roro-!3; Chaldeans, 4
of non-Euclidean geometry, ror5; of Characteristic equation: of a deteminant,
number, 988-9r; of projective geometry, 8oo-8or; of a differential equation, 485;
rooT-ro; of set theory, r 185-86; sec also of a matrix, 8o7; of quadratic forms,
Hilb€rt's axioms for number; Parallel 8oo-8or
axiom Characteristic function, 706.7, 7r5-16, to6'3,
r o68
Banach space, ro88-gt, I rSg, r r?8 Characteristic root: of a determinant, 8oo-
Base, 5-6 l; of a matrix, 8o?-8
Bernoulli numbers, 449, 45r Characteristic triangle, 346, 375, 387
B€ssel functions, 48o-8e, 489, 5t8-r9, 7ro-t t Characteristic value, 48o, 675, 7o6-7, 7r5-
Bessel inequality, 717, ro85 16, ro63, ro68
Beta function, 4a4 Characteristics, theory of, b3b-38, 7@-7oz
Betti numbers, rt6g, rqn-74, t76-77, Christianity, r8o-8r, zoo-:or, :o3-5
r r79-8o Christoftel symbols, 894, r reg
Binomial equation, 6@, 7Bz-53, 76r-64 Christofiel's quadrilinear form, 898; p-ply
Binomial theorem, 272-7r, 438, 44r, fi4-65 form, 898-99
Binormal,56o-6r Circular points, 845, 854
Biquadratic reciprocity, 8r6- r8 Cissoid, r r8-rg, 286, 3b5
Biquaternions, iga Clebsch-Gordan theorem, grg
Birational transformation, 924, 952 Clifrord algebra, 79r
Brachistochrone, 524-75 Commuhtor, r r4e
Branch-cut, 642, 656-bI Complete continuity, r065
Branch-point, 64r -657 Complete quadrilateral, Ie?, 292-gz
Brianchon's theorem, 84 r, 848 Completeness of axioms, rol5, r20?
Burnside's problem, r r43 Completeness of characteristic functions,
Burali-Forti paradox, roog, r r8z 717
Blzantine Empire, r8o, rgr, 1o5,2ro Complex, r r7r
Complex function theory, 626-70, 686-8?,
Calculus, 242-go, 4(ln'-2b,615,7981. see also 934-55
Method of exhaustiou Complex integers, 8rZ-rg
Calculus of extension, 782-85 Complex number, r4, 253.b4, 4o7-8, b94-
Calculus of finite difterences, 44o-4t, 4b2' 95, 635-36, 687, 775-76,8r5-16; geometri-
53 cal representation, 894-95, 628-32; lo-
Calculus of variatiotts, E?3-9t, 685, 799'5t, garithms of, 4o8-r r, 594
ro76, ro78, roSr; Jacobi condition, 745; Composition indices, 762
Legendre condition, 589-go; Weierctrass Composition scries, 762, 767
conditions, 7481, see also Mittimal sur- Computing machines, e58-59
face Couchoid, r r7-r8, e86
Calendar, t2-t3, 2r-22, tr9, t78-79 Confolmal mapping, 216, 37o, b7o-7t,
Cardinal number, 995 666-67, 887: see clso Map-making
Cassinian ovals, g:o Congruence of lines, 567-69
Categoricalness, rot4-t5 Congruence of numbers, 8t3-r8
Catcnari, 382, 472, b79 Conic sectio[s, 47-48, 88-gg, 286, zgg, 3o3-
Cauchy intcglal folmula, 699 4,9r9,897-38,847-49
Cauchy integlal theorem, 599, 636-37, Conic Sections, 27, 96, go-gg, r7z
639-4o,668-69 CoDncctivity, 660-62, 937
Cauchy-Lipschitz thcor-cm, 7 r 8 Corrsistency, 88o, 9r3-r7, rorS-14, ro38,
Cauchy-RiemaDn equations, 627-28, 639, r r8e, r186, rzo6, reog
658 Construction problems, Z8-42, 47-48, tr8,
Cavalicri's theorem, 349 rg5, 234-35,3o9-to, 3r2-14, 7b3'54, 768'
Caylcy-Hamilton theolem, 80?-9 64,84o
SUBJECT rNDEX r23r
Constructive proofs, r go2-5 Deficiency,55z
Content, ro4r-44 Definition: Aristotle's concepr of, Er-52;
Continued fraction, r87, e54-56, 459-6o, in Euclid, 58-59, 68-7r, 79, 78, 8r-82,
rr r4-r6 l006
Continuity, 4oS, gbo-b4i uniform, 959 Del,78r
Continuous change, 2gg DeMorgan's laws, r r8g
Continuous transformation, r r6o-6r Derivative, 244-48, Zbg-Gb, g7r-78, 984-88,
Continuous transformation group, r r39- 425'33' 954-56
40, I 154-55 Desargues's involution theorem, ege-93
Continuum hypothesis, roo?, r rog Desargues's theorem, zgr, 845-46
Convergence, 460-66; Cauchy, 96r -66; Descartes's rule of signs, p?o
strong, ro12-73; wezk, toTz-73i see also Descriptive geometry, 255
Summability Determinant, 606-8, ?gb-8o4; elementary
Coordinate geom€try, 3o'2-24, b44-ili divisors of, 8o3; infinite, 73r; invariant
higher plane curves, 547-54, 855-58; im- factors, 8o3; similar, 8oe; see ako Matri-
portance of, 3er-24; three-dimensional, ces
l2o-2t, 545-47; see also Conic sections; Developable surface, 564-68; polar, 566
Quadric surfaces Dialogue on the Great World Systens,
Cours d'analyse algCbrique,948, 95o, 95r- 927-28
52,963-64 Dialogues Concerning Two Neat Scicnces,
Covariant, ge6 229,328,332-33,938, 348, 468, 999
Covariant differentiation, r r r7-3o Diameter of a conic, 95, g8-gg, eg4-95
Cramer's paradox, 853-54, 886 Difierential, Z7z-78, EBS, 429-3o, 4gE, 615,
Cramer's rule, 606 954
Cremona transformation, gg3-54 Difierential geoDetry, b54-?r, 88 r -9o:,
Cross ratio, rzr-22, r2j-28, :rg-eo, 848-49, ! r3o-35
85 r, 9o7 Differential invariants, 889-902, r r22-e3,
Cross- cut, 660 r rs7-e8, I r30
Cubic equation', 193-95, sEZ, 26A-67, s69 Dimension, ro2r, r r6r-62, rr7?
Cubic reciprocity, 816, 8r8 Dirichlet principle, 659-6o, 684-86, 7o4-5,
Cuneiform, 5 939
Curl, 78r, 785, 789 Dirichlet problem, 685, ?o3-E
Curvature, 264, 3?8, 38p-83, 555-56, EEg- Dirichlet series, 83o
6o; of a manifold, 89r-93, 895-96, rrz6- Discourse on Method, 226-27, 3o4-b
27; mean, 884; of surfaces, Eq-64, 883- Discrete vs. continuous, 34-t5, Et-b3, l?5.
85,887 16
Curve: concept of, t74, 3rz-t4, tor7-zz, Disquisitiones Atirhmcticae, ?52, 8rE- 15,
r16z; length of, 343, 348, 354-55, 414-16, 826-28,82o
gb8, ro2o; see also Hilbert cun'e; Jordan Distance, projective definition of, go8,
curre; Peano curl'e 9ro-rr
Curve and equation, 303-4, gro-r7i see Divergence, 78\, 78b, 789, rr29
also Higher plane curves; Algebraic ge- Divergence theorem, ?go
ometry Divergent series, 466, 973-?7, ro96-tr2o;
Curvilinear coordinates, 687-89, 7r3-r4 see also Asymptotic series; Infinite se-
Cusp. See Singular points of curves ries
Cycle, r r7e Division algebra, rr5r
Cycloid, 938, g5o-52, Zbb, t6I, 469, 412, Domain of rationality. Sae Field
556, 57 5 Double Points. See Singular points of
Cyclotomic equation. See Binomial equa- curves
tion Duality, topological, t174, rr7g
Duality theorem, 845-46, 848-49
De Analysi per Aequationes Numero Ter- Dupin indicatrix, E6g
ntinorunt Infinitas,35g, 96r, 38r, 498
De Reuollttionibus Orbium Coelestium, e, 258, 439, 459-60, 599, 98o-8r
24r Eastern Roman Empire, r8o, rgt, !o5, tr6
Deferent, r5z Edge of regression, 566-67
1232 SUBJECT INDEX
Eigenfunction. See Chalacteristic functiotr 947-72; arithmetic, 176, g96-97, 775-76,

Eigcrrvalue. See Charactet-istic valuc gbo, 972; geomctry, rooS-22; of mathe-
Elastica,4rg,558 matics, r r82-r2ro
f,,lasticity, 468-69, 485, 697-98, 7lg Fourier integral, 679-8r
Eleatic school, 27, Z4-37 Fourier series, 486-89, 5rS-r4, 674-78, 966-
Elements of Euclid, 2b, 27, 33, 37, 52, 56' 72, ro4o, ro46-47, rrrg; see also Tri.go-
88, r72, s2o,393,597, 866, too5-7 nometric scries
Elimination, See Rcsultaut Fourier trarrsfolm, 68r. roq,z-53, ro74: in-
Ellipoidal harmonics, 7r z-t3 tcgral,629-8r
Elliptic functions, 644-5r; addition theo' Fredholm altclrrative theorem, ro6o, ro67-
rem of, 648 69, rogo-9r
Empiricism, 227 -Zo, g3o Flesnel integrals, r roo
Encyclopdd.ie, $lfi, 46b, 5ro, 595, 597, Frrnctiorr concept, 338-4o, 4og-6, gog-7,
6r6 6il'7g' 9+9",,+
Entire functions, 667-68 Furrctional, roZZ-81: differential of, ro8o;
Envelope, 178, b56-57 semi-continuity of, roTg
Epicycle, r57 Functional analysis, ro76-95, r r59
Epicycloid, zg5, 967 Functions of bounded variation, 97r, ro48
Erlanger Prbgrarn,i, grZ-2o, ll39, lr59 Functions of real variables, ro4o-5o
Essential singularity, 64r Fundamental group, r r24-?5
Euclitlean algorithm, 28-79, t87 Fundamcntal theolem: of algebra, 595,
Euclidean geometry, 86r-Og, roo5-22; Alex- l-r97-98; of arithmetic, 79-80, 8r?, 8rg,
andrian Greek, t04, ro7-rg, r!6-eg; 824; of the calculus, 373-74, 956-57
Arabic, rg5; Babylonian, to-tt; Egyp'
tion, tg-lo; Classical Greek, z4-bb, 58- Galois tlreory, 752-64
99; Hindu, r88-89; nineteenth century, Galoisian equation, 763
837-40; solid' 47, 8r-3; spherical, 89, t t9- Gamma function, 423-14
2r Generality,3g4
Euler-Maclaurin summation formula, 452 Generalized coordinates, 588-89
Euler-Poincard formula, r r74 Gcnerators of? group, r r4r, ll43
Euler's constant, 4Eo, 892 Genus, 654-55, 66r, 936-40, rr66-67; geo-
Euler's differential equatiou, 578, 584, 589 metrical, 944; numcrical, 944-45
Euler's difierential geometry theolem, 563 Geocentric theory, rb4-6o, 24r
Euler's topology theolem, r t63-64 Geodesic, b62-OZ, b75,977, 886, 89r
Evolute, 98, 555-56 Geodesy, r r6-r7
Existence,599; in algebra, 597-98; in Eu" Geography, r rg, r6o-62
clideau geometry, 52, 6o, r74, roro" Geometrical algebra, 6z-67, j6-77, to8, rg<,
rr; proof ot, 52, 176-77; see also Ordi' Geometry vs. analysis, 614-r6
nary differential equation; Partial dif- Geometry of numbers, 829
ferential equatiou Geometry fuom the transformation view-
Exponents, 260-6r point,9r7-ro
Gnomon,3o-3r
Fagnano's theorem, 4lE-16 Goldbach's "theorern", 6r6
Fermat's "theorem", ?76-77, 609, 8r8-2o Gradient, 78r, 786, 789, 9or-z
Field, 795, 7b7,82r-2b,93t, r146-5o; ad- Gravitational attraction, 243, 3i7-b8, 367 -
junction, 8zr, rr48; characteristic of, 68,469,490-94,522-30
rr48; extension, 8er, rr48; finite, tr4g- Greck mathematics summarized, r7t-77
5o; Galois theory of, rr49; non-com- Greek science, 4g-5o, ro3, r45-69
mutative, tryr:, p-adjc, r t46-47 Green's function, 683-85, 692, ro69
Fixed point theorem, r r?7-?g Creen's theorcm, 683, 69e-96
Fluent,36r Gregory-Nervton formula, 44o-4 r
Fluxion,36r Group, 757-58; Abelian, 767; abstract,
Folium of Descartes, rr4g 769, rr37-46; alternating, i62; compo-
Formalism, rzo3-8 site, 266, rr42; continuous transforma-
Foundations, g7g-toz2i algebra, r?6, 282, tion, rrgg-40, rrg4-55; discoDtinuous,
772-75, g8o; analysis, 383-89, 416-34, 726-30; of an equation, 758; index, 759;
SUBJECT INDEX r233
infinite, 7e6-3o, 769; linear transforma- Hypernumbers, j82-8bi see also Linear as-
tion, 768-69, monodromy, Tz3; order of, so€iative algebra; Quaternion
759; permutation, see substitution; prim- Hypocycloid, 367
itivc, ?65, rr42; simple, ?66, rr4P; solv-
able, 762, rr42-43i substitution, 258, Ideal, Szz-zg, r r5o-5r, Ir53
764-69; symmetric, 762; in toPology, Ideal numbers,8rg-lo
r r80; transitive, 76b, tr4z Imaginary elements in geometry, 843-48
Group character, r l4E Impredicative defi nition, r r 84
Group represer)tation, ?68, r r43-45 In Artem Analyticarn Isagoge, z6t
Incomnrensurable ratio. See Irrational
number
Hahn-Bauach theorem, rogo Independence of axioms, ror4
Hamilton-Jacobi equation, 744 Indeterminate equations, r4o-43, r87-88
Hamilton's equations of motion, 742-43 Iudex of a curwe, 736-37
Harmonic function, 689 Indivisibles, 349.5 r
Harmonic oscillator, 482 Infinite series, 36o-6r, 4ro, 436-66, 465,
Harmonic set of points, 96, rz8, rg3, 3oo, 48o-82, 488-89; convergence and diver-
85r gence, 460-66, 96r-66; Euler transforma-
Hauptilermutu,ng of Poincard, r r76 tion of, 45a-59; harmonic, 442-44, 44g-
Heine-Borel theorem, 953-54 5o; hypergeometric, 48g, uniform con-
Heliocentric theory, 2 4t - 47, 927 -28 vergence of, 964-66; see arJo Divergent
Helmholtz equation. See Partial differen- series; Fourier series; Ordinary difieren-
tial equation tial equation; Special functions; Trigo-
Hel'mite fu[ction,7r4 nometric series
Hessian, 858, g r Z-28 Infinitesimal, 69, 96r, 985, 288, 42gi see
Hielatic, r5-r6 a/so Differential
Hieroglyphic, r5 Infinity, 53, 69, ,75-77
Higher degree equation, 270, b9g-6o6, Inflection points, 549, 55r-gz, 556, 587,857
7b2-63i see also Abelian equation; Bi- Institutiones Calculi Difierentialis, 4o2,
nomial equatiorl; Galois thegry $o' 463
Highcr plane curves, 542-b4; projective Institutiones Calculi Integralis, 4oe, 48g,
approach,855-58 542
Hilbert cube, r r6r Integral, 360-62, 372-80, 956-6r; I-ebesque-
Hilbelt curve, lor S- lg Stieltjes, ro5o; Riemann, 958-59; Stielt-
Hilbert space, ro74, ro8s, ro88, rogt-95, jes, ro4 r
r r59 Integral equations, loSs-74, ro86, ro89-gr;
Hilbert's axioms for number, ggo-ge Fredholm, ro55, ro58-6o; Volterra, ro55-
Hilbert's basis theorem, ggo-3r, rrgS 58
Hilbert's invariant integral, 749 Interpolation, 4zz-23, 44o- 4r, 494-gG
Hilbert's N ullslellensatz, g4g Intersections of curves, SS3, 856-58
Hilbert-Schmidt theorem, r064, r068 I ntroduc ti o Ari thme t ica, t 36 -38
Hiudus, r83-9o Introductio in Analysin Infinitorum, ggz,
Holomorphic, 642 4o2, 404-5, 4Zo, bo6, bb4, bb9
Homeomorphism, r r58 Intuitionism, r rgZ-r2o3
Homogeneous coordinates, 853-54 Invariance, 299-goo, 92o, 92S-3s
Homologous figures, 842 Inversion, 982-A3
Homolo[Jy, r r8o'8r Involute,555
Homomorphism, 767, t t1g Involution, r28, 2ge-93
Homotopy. See Fundamented group Ionia, 25, r46
Holn angle, 67-68 Iorrian school, :7-28
Humanist movement, 22 r -23, P36 Irrational number, 8, r8, ge-33, 48-4gi 72-
Huygens's principle, 69r, 694 78, 8o-8t, r04, rg4-35, r4Z, t49, t7Z,
Hydrodynamics, 368, beo, 540-42, 686, 696- 126, r85-86, r9r-9s, r97, 2og, 2bt-S2, bg}.
97; hydrostatics, r65-66, 2rr 94; definition, 98r-87
Hyperbolic functions, 4o4 Irreducible polynomials, 755
Hyperelliptic integrals, 65r -53 Isochrone, 47 r, 566
r2M SUBJECT rNDEX
Isomorphism, ?65-62, ! !89 Log;s a ic a num er osa, z6 r -62

Isoperimetric figures, re6, 576-77, 838-39 Logis lico s fE ci o sa, 26 | -62
Isop€rimetric theorem, 838-39 Lunes of Hippocrates, 4r-42
Lyceum of Aristotle, 27
Jacobian, geT-28
Jordan canonical form, 8ro Maclaurin's th€orem, 442
Jordan curve, rorT Magnitudes of Eudoxus, 48-49, 68-79; see
Jordan curve theorem, ror?, r r?g also Irrational number
Jordan- Htilder theorem, 76r, 76i Map problem, r 166
Journals, lgj,6z4-zb Map-making, 16r-6r, 235-96, 286, 564-65,
570-7r
Mastery of nature, 226, 5oz
Kepler's Iaws P4p.-48, 367
Mathematical design of nature, !53, 2rg-
Klein bottle, r 168
14,2r8-t9,316,
KoenigBber8 bridge problem, r 163-64 A28-29
Mathematical induction, PZ2
Kummer surtace, 859
Mathematical logic, z8r, r r87-ge
Mathematical Principles ol Natural Phi-
l4 @omatrie, 27o-jt, z8r, ro', 3o7-r7, losophy, 914-19, 358, 364-69, 38o, 995,
y5 44o, 47o, 492-93, 497, 573
t-aErangeb equations of motion, 588-89, Mathematical societies, 625
740 Mathematics and reality, g9z-94, 879-8o,
I-am6 functions, ?r2-r3 r028-5r
Laplace coeftcients. s?c Legendre poly- Mathematics and rience, 325-35, 394-96,
nomials 616-17; sce also Methodology, of science
Laplrce transform, ro5r Mathieu functions, 7r3-r4
Iaplaet equation. Se, Potential theory Matrices, 8o4-re; congruent, 8rr; elemen-
Iaplacian, 285-86, 9oo-2, r r89-3o tary divisors of, 8og; equivalent, Sog;
Lat€nt roots. S"e CharacteriEtic equation Hermitian, 8o8; infinite, 8rt; invariant
Latitude of formr, sro-r r factors of, 8og; inverse, 8o7; minimal
Iiur€nt cr(Fnsion, 64! polynomial of, 8o8; orthogonal, 8o9-to;
Law of excluded middle, rroc rank of, 8og; similar, 8ro; trac€ of, 8o8;
Law of inertia, 799-8oo transpose, 8o7; see also Characteristic
I-e@ue integral, ro44-5o, roTr equation; Characterfutic root
trbesgue-Stieltj€s integral, ro5o Maxima and minima, 97-98, 341, 347-48,
l,egendre polynomial, 526-3t, 7rt-t2; as- 838-3g
sociat€d, f3 r Maxwell's equations, 698-gg
Lemnirate, 3:o, 416-ro, 549 Mean value theorem, 464, 955
Length, projective definition of, 9o8, 9ro- Means of numbers, 3e
tl Measure, ro44-46
Les Mithoilcs aoutelles de la micanique Micanique analytique, 493, b4r,615, 949,
cilcstc, 7Eb, r ro5, r r7o I 02g
L'Hocpital's rule, 983 Micanique cdleste, 4gb, 498-99, 5go, 542,
Library of Alexandria, ror, r8o 972
Lie algebra. See Absract algebra Mechanics, reg, r6e-66, err-re, 286, 6r6:
Line coordinates, 855 center of gravity, rl9, 164, 2rr, 235, 34S,
Line curve, 848 348; motion, r53, 16z-69, :rr-rr, 335-38,
Line, structure of, 5r-53 469:. see 4rso Astronomy; Pendulum
Linear algebraic equations, 6o6, 8og-4 motion; Projectile motion
Linear asEociative algebra, 7gr-94, rt5t-53 Medicine, 169, 196, zog
Linear transforma tion s, ?68-69, gl7-zo Menelaus's theorem, 12r
Liouville's theorem, 667 Meromorphic functions, 642, 668
logarithm function, 954, 403-4 Metamathematics, r2o5-6
Logarithms, s56-58 Method of exhaustion, 5o, 83-85, ro8,
Logic, Sp-55; scc clso Mathematical lotic rr2-t5, r77,343
Logicism, r r9e-97 Method of infinite descent, P?5
Logistica, r3r Methodology: in algebra, 168-70; in geo-
SUBJECT INDEX r 235
metry, 186, 3oo, 3o2, 3o8, 322; of sci- Optics, 88, 166-68, r96, rre-t3, e85-86, 3o7,
ence,223,395-35 3r4-r1, ib1, g7g-8r , 74o
Methodus Fluxionum et Serierum Infini- Ordinal number, rooo-r
tarum, g0r-62,364, 38r, 439, 47o Ordinary difierential equation, 468-Eoo,
Meusnier's theorem, 864 578, 7o9-A8; adjoint, 482; Bernoulli's
Miletus,2g,22 474; Bessel's, 488-89, St9; Clairaut's 4?6-
Minimal surface, 539, 579, 585-86, 75o 7T exact,476; existence theorems, 7r7-
Miibius band, r r6i-66 2r, tr?9-jg; first order, 4gr, 47r-78;
Modular system, 828 Fuchsian, 7zr-zz. 724-26; higher order,
Module,93r,94g 484-87; hypergeometric, 489, 7rz,' 7t3:
Moment problem , rc72, ttt7 Lami's, 7zr-zzi Legendre's, 529, 7rr;
Morley's theorem, 839-4o linear, 485-87, 73o-32; Mathieu's, 7r3-
Multiple integrals, 4sS-26, 798, ro48-49 r4; method of series, 488-89, 7og-rs;
Multiple points of curves. See Singular nonlinear, 483-84, 732-38; periodic solu-
points of curves tions, ir5-t4, ?go-92; Riccati, 488-84;
Multiple-r'alued complex functions, 64r- second order, 4?8-84; singular solutions
42,655-62 ot, 476-78; systems of, 4go-92, 735, 742t
Museum of Alexandria, rol variation of parameters, 497-gg; Weber's,
Music, r48, 478-79, 48r, 5r5, 5zr-rr, 693' 7t4; see also Asymptotic series, Auto-
g4i see also Vibrating-string problem morphic functions; Qualitative theory
of ordinary difierential equations;
Sturm-Liouville theory; Summability
Napier's rule, z4o
Orthogonal system of functions, 716, to66
Navier-Stokes equations, 696-97
Orthogonal trajectories, 474-75
Navigation, rr9, 25o, 286, gg6-97, 47o'7t
Osculating circle, 556
N-dimensional geometry, 782, 8go, r028-31
Osculating plane, 599, 56t
N€ative number, r43, r85, rga, r5e-53,
Ostrogradsky's theorem. See Divergence
592-93 theorem
Neumann problem, 685
Oval of Descartes, 3r5-ro
Newton's laws of motion, 866-62, 4go
Newton's parallelogram, 439-40, 852
P-adic fields, r r46-47
Newton-Raphson method, 38r
Pappus's theorem, rz8, 297-98
Nine-point circle, 897
Pappus-Guldin tlreorem, r 29
Non-Archimedian geometry, ror6
Pappi, 16, 20, 2b, rgg
Non-Euclidean geometry, 1eg, 86t-8r, 947,
Parabolic cylinder functions, 7 r4
ror4, ro25; applicability, 8j2-72, 817, Paradoxes of set theory, r r82-85
92l-22; axioms for, ror5; consistency, Parallel axiom, &), 117, 852,863-67, 9t6,
88o, 9r3-r7; hyperbolic, 9o5-6; implica-
ror2, !or4
tions, 879-80; models, 888, 9o5-6, 9ta-
Parallel displacement, r r30-33
r7; priority of creation, 877-79; single Parseval inequality, rogg
and double elliptic, 9o4, 906, gre-r3;
Riemannian geometry
see also
Parseval s theorem, 7r6-t7, 97r, to47
Partial derivative, 425
Non-Riemannian geometries, r t 33-35
Partial differential equation, 962, 502-43,
Normal, S60-6r
Number, 29-30; amicable, gr, e?8, 610; 56?-68, 6?r-io?; classification, 7oo-7or;
existence theorems, 685, 699-707, rr?8-
hexagonal, 3r-32: pentagonal, 3r; perfect,
79; first order, 53r-35; Hamilton-Jacobi,
3r, ?8, r37, 2?8, 6ro; polygonal, t37, j44t lJ,eal equation, 672-75, 679, 687-89;
277-78, Azg; prime, see Prime number;
Helmholtz, 693-96, ro56; norrlinear, 536-
square, Bo; triangular, zg-3o, 8:8; see
. also Complex number, Irrational num- 40; Poisson's, 682, 684-85; Potential, 524-
mer, Negative number; Theory of num- 529, 659, 68r-87, ?o3-5; reduced rvave
bers.
cquation, 693-94; scParation of vari'
ables, 5r6-r7, 673-74; systems of., 54o'42,
696-99; total, 532; wave equation, 5os-
Operator, rc76-77, ro9z, ro85-89, rog4; Her- 2c,6qo-94
mitian, roge-93 Pascal triangle, 27e-?3
Optichs,958 Pascal's theorem, e9?-98, 848
r 236 SUBJECT INDEX
Pasch's axiom, ror r-rz r98-99, z8z, A83-89, 393-94, 426-94, 617-
Peano curve, ror8, r 16r rg, ro24-26i indirect method of, 33,
Peano's axioms, 988-89 44-45
Pell's equation, e78, 6to-r r Proportion, 22, r37-98, s37; Eudoxian
Pendulum motion, g3?, 469, 47r-72, 479, theory of, 68
556 Pseudosphere, 893, 9o5
Periodicity modules, 64r, 662 Ptolemy dynasty, rcie-g
Permanence of form, 773-75 Puiseux's theorem, 5S2-58
Permutation. se" Substitution Pure and applied mathematics, r036-38
Permu tations and combinations, :73 Pythagorean number philosophy, z r g
Persia, 4, ro Pythagorean theorem, \o, 20, gg, 6Z-64,
Perslrcctive, egr-94, 286-87 r84
Pi, to-rr, r9, rg4-35, 25t, 255, 353, 439, Pythagorean triples, ro, 3r-32, g4
448, 893, 98o-8c Pythagoreans, 27-14, 49, t47-bo
Picard's theorems, 668
Platonic school, 4r-48 Quadratic equation, 8-9, rg, 186-87, r92-
Pliicker formulas, 852 93; solved geometrically, 76-77
Poincard conjecture, r r75-76 Quadratic form,799-8o; reduction to stan-
Poincare-Bendixson theorem, ?37 dard form, 299, 80r-2; infinite, r069-66;
Poinere's last theorem, r r78 see also Law of inertia
Point at in6nity, 290 Quadratic reciprocity, 6rr-r2, 8rg-r5, 8r7
Polar coordinates, gtg Quadratrix, g9-40, 48
Pole and polar, 96-97, 2914, a98-99, 845 Quadrature, 4s
Polyhedra, regular, 47, 85-86 Quadric surface, ro8-ro, r68, 545-46, 848
Positional nohtion, 5-7, r85 Quadrivium, r46, r49-50, 20r-P
Potential tieory, 522-rg, 659, 68r-87, ro55- Qualitative theory of ordinary differential
56; equation, 524-29, 689, 682-87, ?o3-5; equations, 732-38, rrlo
function, 524, 68e-86 Quantics,928
Power series,64g-44; see also Taylor's Quantitative yersus qualitative knowl-
theorem edge, 933-94
Precession of the equinoxes, r58, 369 quartic equations, 267-?o
Primary and secondary qualities, 326, 329 Quaternion, 779-Bz, 7gr, tozg
Prime number, j8, 277, 609, 8go-32; see Quintic equation, 763
also Theory of numbers; Prime num-
ber theorem Rate of change, instantaneous, 344,360
Prime number theorem, 830-32 Reduction of singularities, 94r-4:
Principia Mathernatica, t rgz Reformation, g r8
Principlb of continuity, 385-87, 84r, 843- Relativity, 894, r r3o-3r
45 Religious motivation, rrg-2o, BBg
Principle of duality, 845-46, 848-49, 855 Residue,638,64o
Principle of Irast Action, 58t-8e, 587-89, Resolvent equation, 604, 760
6zo, 739'45 Resultant, 6o6-8, 797-98
Principle of Least Time, 3r5, 58o-8t Revival of Greek works, 2ob-j,2t6-r7
Principle of Stationary Phase, rogg Ricci tensor, r rz7
Printing, srT Ricci's lemma, r rz9
Probability,273 Riemann four index symbol,8g4, rrz5
Projectile motion, 286, 476, 479 Riemann hypothesis, 83r
Projection, z3z, 287 Riemann mapping lheorem, 666
Projective geometry, 283, 285"3or, 834- Riemann problem, 724, 726, 1o6,9
59, rm7-ro; algebraic, 852-59; and met- Riemann surface, 656-62, gl4-3b, gl7
ric geometry, go4-:3; relation to Eu' Riemann zeta function, 89 r
clidean Beometry, 850-52, 9og, ro33; rela- Riemannian geometry, 889-99, r r26-2?,
tion to non-Euclidean geometry, gog-r2, r r3r-39; applicability, 893
rogg; see also Algebraic invariants Riemann-Irbesguc lemma, l 046-47
Projective plane, rgo, r r68 Riemann-Roch theorem, 66b, 94o
Proof, r4, 20-22, 34, 44-46, bo, t44, 17r, Riesz representation theorem, ro85
SUBJECT INDEX r237
Ricsz-Fischer theorem, 1072, ro84 Subgroup, Tir8; inyariant, see normal; nor-
Rigor, 947-?7, ro25, r2o9; see also Proof mal, 76r; self-conjugate, see Normal
Ring, 8er-zz, 93r, I r50-53 Substitution, 602- Z, j 4j -t 8
Romans, ro6, r78'8o Sumcriarrs,4
Rule of false position, r8-rg Summability, 464, ro98, rrog-zo; Abcl,
Ruled surfaccs, 567, 859 rrrr; Borel, rrrT-rg; Cesiro, rrr3; Fro-
benius, rrr2, rrrg; Hiilder, rrr:-r3; Sti-
Scholastics,2oT eltjes, rrrg-r6
Schwarz-Christoffel mapping, 666-67, 687 Summation convention, r r2?
Schwarz's inequality, ro83, ro93 Superposition, 87
Section, 232, e87 Sylow's theorcm, ?68, rr4r
Seleucid period,4, toz Symbolic logic. See Mathematical logic
Semicubical parabola, 98, 55o Symbolism, ro, r39-40, r43-44, r86, r9z,
Serret-FreDet formulas, 56r -62 259-63,94o,3?8
Set, 9?o, gg4-roo3, rrSg; closed, 995-to78, Symmetric functions, 600, 602
rr6o; derived, g7o, lo78; enumerable,
995-97; first species, 97o; inRnite, 992- Tangcrlt, g42-46
roog; limit point of, 97o; oPen, 995, Tauberian theorem, rrrg
1160; perf€ct, gg5; Power of, 995; well- Tautochrone. See Isochrone
ordered, roor; sea also Space, abstract Taylor's theorem , 442, 464-65, 964
Shape of the earth, 469'7o,522 Tensor analysis, 784, rt22-22
Sieve of Eratosthenes, r38 Thiorie analytique de la chaleur, 672,
Simplex, r t7r q6r, 966
Singular poirrts of curves, 549'52,935,94r' Thiorie d.es lorctions analytiques, 4o6,
42; conjugate point, 55o; cusP, 549-50; 43o-gz, 948,964, ro:9
double point, S49; multiPle point,549; Theory of algebmic equations, z7o-j2, l8r,
node,54g 597-600
Singularities of differential equations, 72r' Theory of forms, 826-19
26, 733, 13? Theory of numbers, rc,29-ga, b3, 77-80,
Slide rule, :98 tZ6-49, 274-78,608-12, 8r3-22, 928; ana-
Sophists,27,3?-42 lytic,829-32; J"e arso Biquadratic reci-
Sound. 482-83, gto-:2, 69r procity; Cubic reciprocity; Pell's equa-
Space: abstract, ro78-8o, rt59-63; com- tion; Prime number; Prime number
pact, ro78, rr6(); comPlete, rr6r; con- theorem; Quadratic reciprocity; Theory
nected, r160; extremal, to?8; function, of forms
ro78-8o, ro8*-84, rr78; interior Point of, Theory of perturbations, 494-98
ro78; limit point of, r160; metric, ro79, Theory of surfaces, 56:-69, 859; cubic, 859;
r 160-6r; metrizable, r16r: neighbor- difierential geometric, 882-88; isomet-
trood, ro7g, rr6o-6r; normal, to87-89; ric, 886; quartic, 859; see also Alge-
perfect, ro78; separable, rr6oi see also braic geometry; Kummer surface; Quad-
Banach space; Hilbert sPace; Set ric surface
Space curves, 2Bb, bb7-62, b66,941 Theory of types, r r9S
Special functions, 4zz'26, 7o9, 7 15 Theta functions, 64q'io
Specialization, ro24 Three-body problem, 169, 492-gZ, 496-97,
Spherical circle, 845, 854
Spherical functions, b29-3o, 7rr-rP Topology, 9:o, r r58-8r; combinatorial,
Spherical harmonics. ser SPherical func- r r59, r169-8r; point bet, rrsg-68
tions Torsion: of a complex, rrTZ-74, rt76-7i,
Stability of the solar system, 73o, 735-36 r r8o; oI a curve, 559-62
Stereometry,23S Tractatus d,e Quad,ratura Curuarum,, 36t-
Sieltjes integral, ro4t, to85 6z
Stirling series, 4bg, to97 Tractrix, 982, 471-74, }ob
Stokes line, r ro3, r ro8 Transcendental number, 593-94, 98o-8e
Stokes' thcorcm, 7go Transfinite number, 992- loo3
Straight line, infinitencss of, 863 Transformation of coordinates, 4e6, b46-42
Sturm-Liouville theory, 7r5-r7 Translation of books, eo6, 2eo
r238 SUBJECT rNDEX
Triangle in€quality, ro79, roSt Vector analysis, 776-79, 785-9r

Trigonometric series, 454'59, 5o8't4, 9168- Velaria problem, 748
7o; scc also Fourier scries.
velocity potential, S25, 686
Trigonometry: Arabic, i95-96; Greek, r19" Vibrating membrane, 5t8-rg, 689, 7rE
16; Hindu, r89; Plane, 119-26, rEg, 237- vibratin8-string probl€m, 418-79, 5o3,'rB
4o; Renaissance, 237-4o; spherical, trg- Volumes, calculation of, 343, 348
16, s37-4o
Trivium, ror ^ waring,s theorem, 609
Truth, 45, so, r5r, crg, 3o5-6, 3e6, 53o'
619-rr,879-8o,89o,893,98o, to3t-36 w;i;;;i; a..;izaiion
iV.i.i.i."*t,f,.or"-,900
theorem, 667-68
WKBJ method' r rol' I ro8

Undecideble prolrositions, rros word Problem' rl4t' rr4E
Undefned terDls,5r, g88, rooE, roro
UnicuEal curve, 55r
Uniformization oi curvei, 937'39 Zeno's paradoxes ' 35'17 ' 992
Universities, ror, 2o9, 2r4, c8o, 397'98, Zero,6, r32, r85 -
6rr-c: Zonal harmonics' Scc kgendre polynomial

Mathmatical Thought From Ancient to Modern Times

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathmatical Thought From Ancient to Modern Times

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample

Batch PDF Merg

Batch PDF Merg

If we wish to foresee the future of mathematics our proper

This book treats the major mathematical creations and developments

The sources have been indicated in the bibliographies of the various

l. Where Did Mathematics Begin? 3 2. Political History in Mesopotamia,4

3. The Creation of Classical Greek Mathematics,24

4. Euclid and Apollonius, 56

5. The Alexandrian Greek Period: Geometry and Trigonometry, l0l

6. The Alexandrian Period: The Reemergence of Arithmetic and Algebra,

7. The Greek Rationalization of Nature, 145

B. The Demise of the Greek World, 171

9. The Mathematics of the Hindus and Arabs, lB3

I0. The Medieval Period in Europe, 200

II. The Renaissance, 21 6

12. Mathematical Contributions in the Renaissance, 231

13. Arithmetic and Algebra in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,

14. The Beginnings of Projective Geometry, 285

15. Coordinate GeometrY, 302

16. The Mathematization of Science, 325

17. The Creation of the Calculus, 342

18. Mathematics as of 1700, 391

l. The Transformation of Mathematics, 391 2. Mathematics aud Scicnce, 394

19. Calculus in the Eighteenth Century, 400

20. Infinite Series, 436

21. Ordinary Differential Equations in the Eighteenth Century, 468

22. Pa*ial Differential Equations in the Eighteenth Century, 502

23. Analytic and Differential Geometry in the Eighteenth Century, 544

24. The Calculus of Variations in the Eighteenth Century, 573

25. Algebra in the Eighteenth Century, 592

26. Mathematics as of 1800, 614

27. Functions of a Complex Variable, 626

28. Partial Differential Equations in the Nineteenth Century, 671

29. Ordinary Differential Equations in the Nineteenth Century, 709

30. The Calculus of Variations in the Nineteenth Century, 739

31. Galois Theory, 752

32. Quaternions, Vectors, and Linear Associative Algebtas,772

33. Determinants and Matrices, 795

34. The Theory of Numbers in the Nineteenth Century, Bl3

35. The Revival of Projective Geometry, 834

36. Non-Euclidean Geometry' 86l

37. The Differential Geometry of Gauss and Riemann, 882

38. Projective and Metric Geometry, 904

39. Algebraic GeometrY, 924

Geometry, 934 5. Thc Uniformization Problem, 937 6. Thc Algebraic-Geometric

.10. The Instillation of Rigor in Analysis, 947

4L The Foundations of the Real and Transfinite Numbers, 979

42. The Foundations of Geometry, 1005

43. Mathematics as of 1900, 1023

44. The Theory of Functions of Real Variables, 1040

45. Integral Equations, 1052

46. Functional Analysis, 1076

47. Divergent Series, 1096

48. Tensor Analysis and Differential Geometry, I122

49. The Emergence ofAbstract Algebra, 1136

50. The Beginnings of Topology, ll58

51. The Foundations of Mathematics, I lB2

List of Abbreviations, l2l 3

Logic can be patient for it is eternal.

l. Where Did Mathemati.cs Begin?

2. Political History in Mesopotamia

3. The Number Symbols

Seleucid period a special separation symbol was introduced to indicate the